BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Laidlaw Inquiry

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 6 December 2012, of the Laidlaw Inquiry.—(Mr Evennett.)

Mr Speaker: For the benefit of the House, a Whip nods and nothing further is said or done. There can be no opposition.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Marine Conservation Zones

Andrew George: What plans his Department has to consult stakeholders about the conservation plans which give effect to marine conservation zones.

Richard Benyon: I expect to consult shortly on the first round of marine conservation zones.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Like him, I am a strong advocate of this policy and have been for some time. May I seek reassurance that the introduction of this policy will create an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones, and will he ensure that all stakeholders—fishermen and environmentalists—are fully consulted on conservation plans, as well as on the designation of sites?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend and I are veterans of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We have strived hard to achieve the definition of ecological coherence, which I am confident we will achieve. He is right to say that the next stage of consultation concerns the management of conservation zones, and I absolutely agree that fishermen and other stakeholders who were involved in the early stages of the process should be included.

Kerry McCarthy: Statutory conservation bodies and the scientific advisory panel have said that to achieve an ecologically coherent network we need 127 marine conservation zones. There are clear indications that the Government intend to reduce significantly the number of zones, so will the Minister look at substituting other zones for those that have been dropped?

Richard Benyon: With respect to the hon. Lady, I am not the slightest bit interested in numbers or lines on maps. I am interested in an ecologically coherent network that can stand up to the independent scientific advisory panel, which stated that some of the 127 sites did not have enough scientific evidence to support them. When introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the then Government said, quite rightly, that the zones needed to be evidence-based. We have put lots of resources into getting more evidence—we will bring forward the first tranche of that any day now—and we will continue to progress this expensive yet important measure as years go by.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the Minister’s proposed visit to the Isle of Wight. Is he confident that the economic impact of MCZs, particularly off the island, will be given sufficient consideration and weight before any formal decision is made?

Richard Benyon: Quite rightly, the Act allowed Ministers the discretion to consider socio-economic impacts in the designation of zones. I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will take such considerations into account.

Tom Harris: The Minister’s Department insists that a lack of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay the establishment of marine conservation zones. Three and a half years after Labour’s world-leading Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and £8.5 million, the latest nature watch report by the Wildlife and Countryside Link has awarded Ministers a black mark for their inaction. When the Department is given an opportunity to act, why does it choose instead to dither?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman had only to consult his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), to understand the basis of what we are seeking to achieve. A couple of weeks ago, those on the Labour Front Bench were wrongly accusing the Government of ignoring scientific advice. The hon. Gentleman is now telling us to ignore such advice but I am sorry, we are not prepared to do that. The establishment of marine conservation zones must be done properly and stand up in terms of evidence. In the full spirit of the 2009 Act, on which all parties agreed, we must have absolute clarity on what is meant by ecological coherence, and we will get there.

Milk Prices

Andrew Selous: What recent steps he has taken to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for milk.

David Heath: After months of hard work, not least by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), the industry code of practice is now being translated into contracts. I am encouraged to hear of new contracts and pricing mechanisms that improve the transparency and fairness of milk prices for farmers. The Government will soon be consulting on our domestic implementation of the EU dairy package, enabling dairy farmers to form recognised producer organisations to further improve their bargaining power.

Andrew Selous: There has been a dairy herd of Holstein Friesians in Eggington, outside Leighton Buzzard, since 1933, but I was concerned to learn from the farmer in July that he is not confident that milk production can continue there, which would be an absolute tragedy. The farmer told me last night that he receives 30.5p per litre, but when I checked this morning, Tesco was selling milk for 86.3p per litre, which is 49p a pint. Is the Minister sure that farmers are getting a fair share, and what can we do to ensure they have a sustainable future?

David Heath: We need to do a lot of things to support the dairy industry, but I am optimistic. If we can make the voluntary code stick—I have no reason to suppose we cannot—it will go a very long way to improving the transparency of contracts, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill is going through the House. The Department will do everything it can to maintain the profitability of producers and ensure that every part of the supply chain is fairly treated, including the retailer and the consumer.

Margaret Ritchie: Following our meeting of some weeks ago, will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with the devolved Minister in Northern Ireland on an evaluation of the operation of the voluntary code for the dairy industry? Is he satisfied that the dairy industry is being sufficiently protected?

David Heath: As I have indicated to the hon. Lady, I would be very happy to talk to the Minister in the Northern Ireland Government, whom I met at the Agriculture Council. That matter did not crop up in our conversation, but the door is open to discuss how we might move forwards together on this important issue for farmers in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned Bedfordshire and Tesco, but will the Minister praise the work of supermarkets such as Waitrose, which not only pays a fairer price, but pays promptly?

David Heath: Both those elements are essential, but I do not want to name and shame specific supermarkets, however tempting that might be. I want all major supermarket chains to behave in a fair and transparent way as far as their suppliers are concerned. There are signs that that is happening not only in the dairy sector, but in other produce sectors.

Eilidh Whiteford: The supply chain practices affecting our dairy industry affect other livestock producers, perhaps none more so than our pig producers, which are close to the Minister’s
	heart. Pigs are being sold well below the cost of production. Given VION’s announcements last week, what will the Minister do to ensure a future for the pig industry?

David Heath: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that I am interested in the pig sector, having bred pigs myself. She will know that we cannot disguise the cyclical nature of the pig industry. Having said that, I am concerned about the current position, but there are signs of progress. Some supermarkets are now prepared to share risk in the pigmeat sector, which I want to encourage.

Mr Speaker: The milking of pigs is a novelty, and although I am not an expert on these matters, I hazard the guess that it would prove to be an unprofitable activity.

Flooding

Bill Esterson: What recent discussions he has had on flooding.

Owen Paterson: First, I offer my condolences to those who lost family and friends in the recent floods, and my sympathies to those whose lives have been disrupted.
	I have had many discussions recently on flooding. On 23 November, I met representatives from all the public services in Northampton to discuss their experiences. Last week, I visited Exeter and Kennford to talk about flooding with local communities there. My ministerial colleagues, my officials and I are also in regular contact with our counterparts in other Departments and agencies on flooding issues.

Bill Esterson: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about those who suffered in the recent floods. Given the misery caused by flooding to many people throughout the country, does he agree that we should do everything we can to prevent building on land that floods? Will he remind the planning Minister that his comments about building on the countryside have caused great concern among those facing the risk of flooding?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about those who have suffered so much in the recent floods.
	The recent national planning policy framework is absolutely clear. It seeks to ensure that development is located away from flood risk wherever possible; that the development that is needed in flood-risk areas is safe and resilient; that flood risk is assessed so it can be avoided and managed; and that opportunities offered by new development are used to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding.

James Gray: The Secretary of State’s hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, will have seen the heart-wrenching devastation caused by terrible flooding last weekend in the town of Malmesbury in my constituency. They were not new houses on flood plains; 500-year-old cottages on the verge of the river were particularly badly affected. The people there are badly affected by the fact that they cannot get contents
	insurance. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to enter into negotiations with the Association of British Insurers to reach a solution that will allow everyone, whether in flood-affected areas or not, to insure the contents of their houses?

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend’s comments about the real difficulties faced in Malmesbury, which was visited by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
	The first meeting I had outside the office was with the ABI in September, and we have been working closely in recent weeks. We are involved in detailed negotiations, as the statement of principles was always going to come to an end in 2013. We want to achieve a better system of insurance that is as comprehensive as possible, provides affordability, and is not a huge burden on the taxpayer. Those detailed negotiations are continuing. The ball is in the ABI’s court and we look forward to hearing from them shortly.

Grahame Morris: The floods in the past few weeks have highlighted the importance of affordable home insurance for home owners in constituencies such as Easington, Wansbeck, and across the north-east and the whole country. We were promised a deal on flood insurance by July this year. We heard from the Prime Minister that Oliver Letwin is in charge of the negotiations. Will the Secretary of State tell us why this policy has been so badly delayed? Will he clarify the position to the House?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was referring to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin).

Grahame Morris: I apologise.

Owen Paterson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement of principles was always going to run out in 2013. That was confirmed in 2008, and we inherited absolutely nothing from his Government. We have been working closely with the ABI. We are in detailed negotiations and I totally agree with him that we want to achieve a system that is affordable and as comprehensive as possible, and which is not a burden on the taxpayer. We are working towards that. These are detailed negotiations, but I cannot conduct them in public or on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Mr Speaker: Tessa Munt.

Tessa Munt: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady has changed her mind. We are saddened. Mr Gary Streeter.

Gary Streeter: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt).
	I am glad that the Secretary of State has been to Exeter. From that visit, he will know that the recent floods disrupted the vital train link between the far south-west and London. Will he ensure that any future investment in flood defences takes into account protecting vital transport infrastructure, not just homes and businesses?

Owen Paterson: I enjoyed my visit to Exeter and I pay tribute to everyone who pulled together—councils, public services, the Environment Agency and all those who managed to repair the railway line. I saw where it had been breached and they got the line working the day after I was there. I hope it reassures my hon. Friend to hear that the first phone call I made on leaving Exeter was to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who had already been on the case to ensure that the vital rail link was restored. I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s point about transport links and flooding.

Mary Creagh: I echo the condolences of the Secretary of State to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the floods.
	Last week, there was an announcement of a new £120 million U-turn on flood defence spending. However, even after that announcement, the Government will still spend less on flood defences in 2013 than Labour spent in 2008. Just 30% of that money will be spent next year because the Environment Agency no longer has the staff capacity to get the money out of the door. It is difficult to decide which is more incompetent: cutting the budget too far in the first place or, when they change their mind, not having the capacity to get the money out of the door and to the communities that need it.

Owen Paterson: I love the way the hon. Lady always looks for the downside in a story—her ingenuity is tremendous. The fact is that on 11 September, within a week of coming in, I met the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith. We saw a great scheme, which, in fairness, her Government launched in Nottingham. I asked him to come forward with proposals for future flood schemes, as the benefits in Nottingham were clear—not just 16,000 houses protected by the £45 million scheme, but the 500 acres freed up for development, which had previously been blighted. He wrote to me, quickly, on 26 September, and I am happy to give the hon. Lady the letter. We have put what he asked for into practice, to the letter: another £120 million, which will be of great benefit and save a further 60,000 houses from flooding.

Mr Speaker: I appeal to colleagues to speed up the exchanges. We have a lot to get through, and questions and answers are too long.

Mary Creagh: Of course, it is great to build flood defences, but it is just as important to maintain the ones we already have and to keep our rivers clear. Yesterday, however, the Chancellor announced that a further £60 million would be cut from DEFRA’s budget, so can the Secretary of State guarantee that no further cuts will fall on the Environment Agency’s river-dredging and maintenance budget, which is already set to fall from £108 million in 2010 to just £60 million in 2015?

Owen Paterson: As the hon. Lady knows, we inherited a hideous mess from her Government and are taking time to put it right in a very difficult world environment. I have to go back to my early reading, when I came into the House, of “Erskine May”, but she must stick to the truth on these issues. In total, with all the agencies involved, the Government will spend more over the four-year term than the Labour Government spent over their last four-year spending round.

Mr Speaker: I know that the Secretary of State was not suggesting that the hon. Lady would knowingly tell an untruth. He would not suggest that, I am sure, because he would be in breach of the conventions of the House, if he were to do so. Will he confirm that he was not suggesting that she would knowingly tell an untruth?

Owen Paterson: I am trying to correct statements made—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think we will take that as a no. He is not suggesting anything of the sort, but simply seeking to put his own position on the record, for which we are grateful.

Water and Sewerage Industry

David Mowat: What plans he has for the future structure of the water and sewerage industry.

Richard Benyon: The Government’s water White Paper set out our vision for a resilient and sustainable water industry that is able to attract long-term investment. We are committed to measured reform to protect the strengths of the current system. Our draft Water Bill includes proposals to deliver evolutionary reform of the water sector. This will benefit customers and enable new players and new ways of thinking to enter the market.

David Mowat: The UK regulated asset base has been a great driver of inward investment into the UK for infrastructure projects. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the draft Bill that will undermine the size of that asset base, and will he consider using the regulated asset model to bring in money for badly needed flood defences?

Richard Benyon: I can confirm that the golden thread running through our water White Paper, all our policies since then and, in particular, the Water Bill underpins our commitment to continued investment in this sector. It has benefited from £108 billion of low-cost investment over the past 22 years, and we want to see that outstanding success continue. I note what my hon. Friend says about the plans to extend the model to flood defences. That proposal has been put by one or two water companies. We do not propose to bring it forward at this time, but we are always open to considering such matters.

Barry Sheerman: If the Minister is doing something about the structure of the water industry, I hope he will be influenced by the fact that, as it has been revealed, three companies do not pay any tax.
	On a specific problem with sewage and water, is he aware that most hospitals discharge all their food waste straight down into the sewerage system? Is it not about time we did something about that 19th-century practice?

Richard Benyon: One of the reforms that we are seeking to introduce in the draft Water Bill is about bringing innovation into the sector. There are fantastic new technologies that can tackle precisely the sort of
	things the hon. Gentleman talks about, and the Bill will allow such schemes to be introduced in a cost-effective way.

Flood Defences

Graham Evans: What assessment he has made of the effect of partnership funding on the provision of flood defences.

Owen Paterson: Partnership funding is enabling more flood and coastal schemes to go ahead and giving local people more choice in how their community is protected. The approach has brought forward £72 million of external funding so far. This is likely to increase further, compared with the £13 million during the previous period. Early indications suggest that up to a third more schemes will go ahead in the coming years than if the previous funding system had remained.

Graham Evans: Has the Department been liaising with insurance companies to help individuals affected by the most recent floods, such as the businesses that were affected in Northwich?

Owen Paterson: I enjoyed my visit to Northwich and pay tribute to all who have worked so hard to put the town straight after a difficult time in the floods. We are working with a range of agencies, including the insurance industry, to ensure that floods cause as little disruption to people’s lives as possible.

Chris Williamson: In a press statement issued earlier this year outlining the £120 million of additional funding that would be made available for flood defence work, the Secretary of State mentioned Derby. Some 2,000 households in Chester Green and Darley Abbey are at risk of flooding. The city council has an excellent scheme of flood defence works. Can he outline the percentage that would be expected from the city council to get those works under way?

Owen Paterson: We are working on the details of the extra money as we speak, but the hon. Gentleman might be pleased to note that Derby was mentioned in the letter that Lord Smith wrote to me on 26 September. I would strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to get involved in the negotiations and push for his town.

Super-Dairies

Bob Blackman: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that super-dairies do not have a detrimental effect on animal welfare and traditional British farming.

David Heath: There is a place in UK agriculture for all sustainable production systems that meet our welfare and environmental standards. That is necessary to enable the industry to be competitive in UK, EU and global markets. Increasing the size of herds does not necessarily mean reducing welfare. More important factors are the design and construction of the units and the level of management and skill of the stockmen.

Bob Blackman: I am delighted that we have some of the most stringent regulations in the world to protect cattle, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations will be rigorously enforced to protect cattle from those who would exploit them?

David Heath: I can certainly confirm that. The 2006 Act provides a duty of care to animals, which includes welfare provisions. We will rigorously enforce those measures to ensure that the welfare of farmed animals is maintained.

Jim Shannon: One of the greatest problems for dairy farmers is the retention and disposal of slurry, especially in poor weather conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to help to ensure that farmers can dispose of slurry in the poor conditions we face.

David Heath: Members are being very inventive in their use of questions today. This is a real issue: many of us find it frustrating that slurry disposal is dictated by date rather than good husbandry practice. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have extended the period for spreading slurry in England to the greatest extent I can within the regulations. I cannot do more than that, but we are working with the industry to find the best possible ways of helping farmers to dispose of slurry, which they cannot currently spread on wet fields.

Roger Williams: Long-term successful farmers always make animal welfare and nutrition top priorities. Does the Minister agree that at the heart of all successful and profitable farming lies a commitment to animal welfare and that any system should be judged against that principle?

David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A good stockman recognises that the welfare of the animals under his or her control is of paramount importance. No one can farm well if they ignore the welfare of animals. As far as we are concerned, maintaining the highest possible welfare standards—as well as maintaining the pressure on the European Union more widely to adopt them—is a top priority.

Farmers (Regulatory Burden)

Mark Menzies: What assessment he has made of steps taken by his Department to reduce the burden of regulation on farmers.

David Heath: Good progress is being made to reduce regulatory burdens on farmers through our response to the farming regulation task force, through which, among other initiatives, we are working to reduce the burden of on-farm inspections and paperwork. Costs to farmers of complying with regulations are falling. Since 2011, for every £1 of new compliance costs, we are removing over £13 of inefficient compliance costs.

Mark Menzies: Farmers in Fylde are constantly raising with me the amount of paperwork they face and the regulatory burdens that causes. Will the Minister update
	the House on the recommendations he is making that will allow farmers to get on with farming and ease the burden?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It would detain the House for quite a long time if I went through all 137 commitments we have made on introducing deregulatory measures, but let me give one recent example of how we are working to reduce the burden of paperwork on farmers. We now provide for some record-keeping exemptions for low-intensity farms, as a result of the Government’s recent nitrates consultation. I hope that indicates the tenor of what we are trying to achieve in the Department.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the Minister accept that the Government’s ill-conceived plan to regulate for a minimum alcohol price will have a devastating effect on west country cider farmers?

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that, because of my constituency interests, I cannot answer that question in a ministerial capacity, but I can say—

Ben Bradshaw: Get someone else to answer it then.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman appears not to know the procedure of the House. He is asking a supplementary question. I cannot sit down and ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to stand up in my place—[ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will be able to advise the right hon. Gentleman on the procedures of the House at some time. I can say to him that we take the matter seriously, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is taking the appropriate measures—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt, although I am not privy to the details of the exchange, it is absolutely correct to say that only one Minister can answer the question. Whether or not people like the answer is another matter.

Ben Bradshaw: But he is responsible.

Mr Speaker: I note the point about responsibility. There are quite a lot of hand gestures going on, but we must now—[ Interruption. ] Order. The Minister of State must calm himself. We must move on.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take a point of order at the end of questions.

Flooding (Wales)

Glyn Davies: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on measures to reduce flooding by changes in planting and drainage.

Richard Benyon: I have regular contact with the Welsh Government but our discussions have not covered that specific issue.
	However, officials from DEFRA and the Environment Agency share experience and evidence of land management measures such as drainage and planting with colleagues in Wales.

Glyn Davies: The River Severn rises in Plynlimon in mid-Wales but causes most of its flood damage in England. The Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust is doing magnificent work with its Plynlimon project, which benefits diversity as well as helping flood relief by holding back rainwater. Will my hon. Friend work closely with the Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust and the Welsh Government to provide support that is commensurate with that benefit?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question; this is not a debate.

Richard Benyon: I am well aware of the importance of Plynlimon to the whole Severn estuary, and to houses and property on both sides of the border. We have to take an holistic view in flood management when cross-border issues need to be ironed out, and we are working to ensure that the new Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Environment Agency are working closely on this issue.

Low-energy Lighting

Sheila Gilmore: What progress he has made in negotiations with the EU on a derogation from the ban on the import or manufacture of incandescent bulbs for those who suffer ill health as a result of exposure to low-energy lighting ahead of the review of legislation in 2014; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Speaker: I call a Minister to answer the question.

David Heath: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I blame the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for distracting me. Why not?
	There are no provisions allowing the European Commission or individual member states to create exemptions from regulation 244/2009, which phases out incandescent bulbs. However, we are pressing to ensure that EU policy and legislation take full account of the potential health implications of artificial lighting. We have successfully ensured that provisions for people with light-sensitive health conditions were included in a new eco-design regulation that sets minimum standards for directional lighting and light-emitting diodes.

Sheila Gilmore: My constituents are pleased that the draft regulations for directional lighting acknowledge that there is a problem with health. The other regulations are due for review in 2014. Will the Minister confirm that he, along with other parts of the EU, will seek to achieve a change in 2014, so that the problem can be resolved?

David Heath: My Department and the Department of Health are working closely with the lighting industry, the Health Protection Agency, charities and patient groups such as the Spectrum Alliance—I understand
	that the hon. Lady has a connection with the Spectrum Alliance—on how to make information on appropriate lighting solutions available. We have had productive discussions with the Department of Health and the lighting industry to identify health care professionals who can assist us. We will ensure that we have a plan of action by early next year, ready for next September when the new eco-design regulations come into force.

Andrew Bridgen: The European Commission has pledged further to investigate the link between artificial lighting and various health conditions. Will the Minister update the House on when that research will come forward?

David Heath: I am afraid that I do not have that information for my hon. Friend, but I will happily write to him on the matter. We ought also to recognise the contribution that LED lighting can make. It may be part of the solution to the problem.

Flooding

Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on his Department’s response to the recent floods; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her letter on behalf of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, making representations on my Department’s flood response. I will reply in due course. During my visits to Northampton, Exeter and Kennford, I have also had a number of useful representations from the people affected, emergency services and local councillors.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that reply. A ministerial visit to North Yorkshire would be most welcome. We have experienced flooding for the second time since September. I would like to join the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) in what she said about drains. What has been a feature since 2007 is surface water flooding—clean water mixing with foul water, coming into people’s homes. The SUDS—sustainable urban draining systems—regulations need to be adopted as a matter of urgency, as 2014 is simply unacceptable. I think the British public expect DEFRA to act as a matter of urgency.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) visited York recently, and we fully take on board how people have been affected. The question of getting water away is very relevant, and the Environment Agency is quite clear that drainage channels have to be kept free for flow, but for the real emergencies such as those we have had, the priority has to be protection of life and serious damage to property. The question of the SUDS regulations is complicated, which is why we are intending to bring them in in 2014. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber.

Gavin Shuker: One of the most pressing and important long-term responses to the challenge of flooding is the protection of those 200,000 home owners who will be left without insurance, leaving their homes unmortgageable and unsellable, if the Minister cannot get a deal. The Association of British Insurers has described discussions on flood insurance as “stalled”. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to lay out calmly what he believes is the last acceptable date for a deal?

Owen Paterson: I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the talks are not stalled. We have had detailed discussions on a regular basis with the ABI—before I came into office in September and since. I am not going to put a date on it, because we want to get to a system that improves on the current statement of principles. To repeat what I said earlier, we want something that is affordable and as comprehensive as possible but which is not a burden on the taxpayer. We intend to carry on these detailed negotiations, but I cannot conduct them in public.

Topical Questions

Mr Speaker: May I remind the House that topical questions and answers to them should be brief? Perhaps we can do better in this part of the proceedings than we did in the first part.

Stephen Barclay: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Owen Paterson: DEFRA is doing everything to seek to boost growth in the rural economy, improve the environment and safeguard the health of our plants and animals. I have this morning published our interim control plan for Chalara and the interim report of the expert taskforce on tree health and plant biosecurity, copies of which can be found in the Library. Our recent focus has, of course, been on the floods and the efforts to protect people’s lives, homes and businesses. I would like to place on record my condolences to those who have lost loved ones and my praise for the response of the emergency services, Government agencies and local authorities.

Stephen Barclay: Given the challenging weather conditions experienced by farmers this year and the shocking performance of the Rural Payments Agency under the last Government, can my right hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no unnecessary delays regarding single farm payments?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the chance to put straight the current record. He is right that the performance of the RPA was a real failure in previous years. As of 4 December, however, 96,037 customers with claims or 92.3% had been paid £1.4 billion. That is comfortably the RPA’s best ever performance and we will see it deliver its December payment targets by the end of this week, providing certainty to farmers at a very difficult time.

Steve Rotheram: There has been a number of instances in Liverpool, Walton of dogs attacking other animals and persons. Police dog sections have been clamping down on irresponsible owners in our parks, but current legislation offers zero protection against dog attacks on private property. Can the Minister tell me when he expects the law to be extended and whether this will be announced in the next Queen’s Speech?

Richard Benyon: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a Home Office measure has been proposed to extend our controls to private property. I cannot second-guess the next Queen’s Speech, but I can agree to regular consultations with the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Fabricant: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Woodland Trust, known as Coed Cadw in Wales. As the Minister will know, over those 40 years some 16 million trees have been planted, but they are now facing a real challenge in the form of ash dieback. What steps is the Minister taking to work with the trust to overcome the problem?

Owen Paterson: I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust and its work, and to its 400,000 members, some of whom I enjoyed meeting at a reception in the House a couple of weeks ago. Today I am publishing an interim plan for controlling Chalara fraxinea, the pathogen that causes ash dieback, which sets out actions to build on existing participation in the process of identifying threats to tree health. That includes the provision of funds for a pilot project to develop a tree health early-warning system, involving volunteer groups such as the Woodland Trust, and the establishment of a “plant health network” of trained people to support official surveillance of Chalara and other pests. The Woodland Trust will play a very important role in that.

Kerry McCarthy: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Shark Alliance on its successful campaign against shark finning, and on closing the loophole in the European Union shark-finning ban? Will the Government now work to secure a complete ban on shark finning? As a first step, will they focus on securing international trade safeguards for vulnerable shark and ray species under the convention on international trade in endangered species when its signatories next meet in March?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Lady is looking at the Shark Trust’s greatest fan: it has done wonderful work. I am delighted about the recent vote in the European Parliament, and I hope that the hon. Lady is pleased that the Government have been at the forefront of this campaign. We have been leading the way in Europe, and we will now lead the way internationally.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work that he is doing in negotiating reforms of the common agricultural policy. Does he share my concern about potential delays owing to lack of agreement on
	the budget, and will he assure the House that farmers will have enough time to prepare for the next round of CAP reforms?

Owen Paterson: When I attended a meeting of the Agriculture Council last week, I made clear to my 26 colleagues that if we were not going to meet the 2014 deadline we should admit it now, and that all existing arrangements—such as the special arrangement on modulation—should continue until the settlement date, which may be 2015 or 2016.

Ben Bradshaw: Unless every DEFRA Minister with a farm in his constituency is now disqualified from answering a farming question, will one of them now try to answer my question about the devastating impact of the Government’s proposed minimum alcohol price on the cider industry?

Richard Benyon: I shall be delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the cider industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been told that he cannot speak on the issue because of the preponderance of cider farmers in his constituency, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working on the issue with the Department of Health and the Home Office. We will raise with those Departments any instances in which the measure would have a pernicious effect on the rural community, and exceptions may be forthcoming.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State press the European Union harder to open its markets to developing countries, especially in relation to the common agricultural policy?

Owen Paterson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am in favour of free trade in all products, because opening up markets gives real opportunity to our own farmers who want to export in the other direction.

Lilian Greenwood: Despite new flood defences along the River Trent, which provided great reassurance during the recent floods, many of my constituents cannot obtain affordable insurance for their homes. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s earlier answer about the floods, but when will he be able to reassure those people that they will be able to secure insurance in the future?

Owen Paterson: I think I made it clear to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) that we want to get this right, but I am not going to place an artificial deadline on it. All of us, including the hon. Lady’s party, knew that the current arrangements would end in 2013. I repeat that we want to improve on those arrangements, and that it does not help when people make out, in the middle of negotiations, that the talks are foundering or in trouble. We are working very closely with the insurers, and we intend to secure a good deal for those whose houses are at risk of flooding.

Simon Hart: The export of lamb and beef is a vital part of the Welsh agriculture industry. Is the Secretary of State making any progress in promoting British exports?

Owen Paterson: I recently visited China and Hong Kong, and celebrated a tremendous launch in Hong Kong of the exporting of beef on the bone. Last year we celebrated record food exports worth £18 billion, and thanks to the Prime Minister’s intervention, the beef export market has been opened up in Russia. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s Pembrokeshire neighbours at Trioni Ltd, who are looking forward to selling organic milk to the Chinese.

Ian Lavery: What is more important to the Secretary of State: appeasing the Treasury or securing affordable, accessible flood-risk insurance for those 200,000 homes and businesses in flood-risk areas?

Owen Paterson: I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman—this is about the fourth or fifth time during these questions—that we are looking for a good, long-term deal that gives reassurance to his constituents who are worried about flooding, that is as comprehensive as possible and that is satisfactory to the taxpayer. We are working extremely closely with colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, and we will come to a better arrangement than his Government left behind.

Nick de Bois: Given the growing incidence of plant disease across the globe and the increasingly global nature of trade, what plans does the Minister have to address the long-term threat of disease to our plants and trees?

David Heath: On 30 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser to convene an independent expert taskforce on tree health and plant biosecurity to review the current arrangements and make recommendations to address long-term tree and plant disease risk. Today, the taskforce published its interim report and made a number of recommendations on measures to address the increasing threat to the health of our plants and trees. They included strengthening our approach to risk assessment, improving biosecurity and clarifying governance.

Graham Jones: The Forestry Commission website indicates that there is an ash dieback infection in a tree in the north of my constituency, yet the Forestry Commission refuses to identify the location of the tree. Given that the Forestry Commission manages only a certain proportion of our trees, what about the danger to the other remaining trees? Why is there such secrecy in the Forestry Commission about revealing the identity of this infected tree?

David Heath: Let us just be clear for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman: if the infected tree is mature, as we are not in the period of sporulation there is no danger to surrounding trees, certainly not at the moment. The advice from the scientific advisers is that it is better to leave mature trees in situ than to fell them. The contrary advice applies to new planting saplings.

Neil Parish: The people of Halberton and the Environment Agency worked very well when the damage to the canal happened, preventing flooding from occurring throughout the village.
	However, I want to see better management of our waterways, through farmers and local communities managing water and helping to dredge the rivers, because we are not doing enough to stop the flooding.

Richard Benyon: I assure my hon. Friend that we learn lessons from every flooding incident. Although we have implemented Pitt and the other aspects that came from recent floods, we are looking closely at issues such as dredging. I know that that is a concern in his constituency, as it is in Somerset and other places where the belief is that water is held on the ground for too long.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Government support the United States and Russia in seeking an effective ban on the trade in polar bear hides at the forthcoming CITES—convention on international trade in endangered species—conference?

Richard Benyon: I met the US Government’s director with responsibility for fish and wildlife yesterday and heard the points that he was making. We are also listening to other countries that take a contrary view. We take our CITES responsibility seriously and we are looking into this issue, so I will consult the hon. Gentleman.

Ian Swales: Given lurid reports on the treatment of racing greyhounds, such as that they are being administered class A drugs, what assessment has the Minister made of the industry’s self-regulation regime, and will he make a statement?

David Heath: Apart from that self-regulation, greyhounds are protected under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and racing greyhounds are also protected through the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, which provide local authorities with powers to inspect independent greyhound tracks and to issue licences, as appropriate. If my hon. Friend has particular concerns that he would like to share with me, I would be very happy to meet him to see whether there is more we can do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but we must now move on.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Women Bishops

Helen Goodman: What recent representations the Church Commissioners have received on the ordination of women as bishops.

Laura Sandys: What recent progress has been made in finding a way forward on the issue of women bishops which maintains the unity of the Church.

Anne McIntosh: If he will discuss with the Government bringing forward legislative proposals to enable women priests to be consecrated as bishops.

Tony Baldry: Following the statement I made on 22 November, the Archbishops Council has met and concluded that a legislative process to admit women to the episcopate needs to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod. It was also agreed that the Church of England needed to resolve this matter through its own process as a matter of urgency. The House of Bishops is meeting early next week and has been urged by the Archbishops Council to put in place a clear process for discussions in the new year to inform the decisions that will need to be taken on the shape of the new legislation.
	It may be for the convenience of Members of this House to know that they and Members of another place will have the opportunity to discuss these matters further at the meeting that I have arranged with the next Archbishop of Canterbury, the current Bishop of Durham, next Thursday at 9.30 in the Moses Room in the House of Lords.

Helen Goodman: I am very grateful for that full answer. When I was in church on Sunday, of the 14 people sitting in front of me 13 were women. I think all Members of this House understand how urgent the question is. If fresh legislation is to be passed by the current Synod, it is very important that members of the Church can lobby Synod in a proper way. The Church has published how members of Synod voted but not indicated to which dioceses they belong. Could that also be put up on the website so that people can lobby intelligently?

Tony Baldry: I see absolutely no reason why that information should not be made available and I will ensure that it is. The process should be perfectly transparent and every member of Synod should be accountable for how they voted.

Laura Sandys: As we know, the Church has been skirting around the issue for many years. According to the timetable my hon. Friend has presented, when will the vote come back to Synod to be reconsidered?

Tony Baldry: I hope that, if we can crack on with fresh legislation being presented to the Synod in July, the matter can be eventually resolved by the finish of this Synod in 2015.

Anne McIntosh: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing? I hope that the message will go out from the House today to the Synod that we are waiting for its members to make legislation or else we stand prepared to introduce legislation of our own within that time frame.

Tony Baldry: The clear message from Parliament and the country as a whole to the Church was that this issue cannot be parked. It has to be resolved as speedily as possible and I know that the next Archbishop of Canterbury fully and wholly endorses that approach. I am sure he will make that very clear when he meets colleagues next Thursday.

David Winnick: It is 46 years, almost to the day, since I raised in a debate the difficulties faced by those with colour in trying to get jobs—before the Race Relations Act 1976 was passed. I did not believe that nearly half a century later I would be on my feet protesting against discrimination against women. Is it not absolutely essential that there should be the utmost sustained parliamentary pressure to change a situation in which women are discriminated against in such a blatant manner in the Church?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree. Everyone in the Church of England needs to understand that, so far as Parliament and the wider community are concerned, this issue is increasingly seen as the Church of England discriminating against women. That is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally bad for the image and work of the Church.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must tread with extreme caution in trying to tell the Church of England how to run its own affairs? It is nearly 100 years since this Parliament has interfered with the Church’s affairs—

Chris Bryant: Rubbish! Nonsense!

Peter Bone: Although Members are entitled to hold very strong opinions, would my hon. Friend reflect that it is really up to the Church of England to sort this out?

Tony Baldry: I do not think that anyone is telling the Church of England what to do. I have a very privileged position in this House; I think I am the only person other than Ministers who has the right to answer questions—[ Interruption. ] Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), of course. I do apologise. Very few of us have the right to answer questions. There are 26 bishops—24 bishops and two archbishops—in the House of Lords as a benefit of Establishment. Those are privileges and this House is therefore entitled to give good advice to the Church of England on how the Church should be run if it is to continue to have those privileges.

Mr Speaker: I do not want to intrude on any discussion about the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), but I think we can all agree that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) is the representative of a rarefied breed.

General Synod (Reform)

Ben Bradshaw: What plans the Church of England has to make the House of Laity more representative of members of the Church.

Diana Johnson: What discussions the Church Commissioners have held on the issue of women bishops since the General Synod's vote of 20 November 2012; and what plans the Church has to make the House of Laity more representative of local opinion in dioceses and parishes.

David Nuttall: By what process reform of the General Synod could be achieved.

Michael Fabricant: What steps the Church Commissioners could take to allow the majority view of the General Synod to be enacted with regard to the appointment of women bishops.

Tony Baldry: The membership of deanery synods has constituted the electorate for the House of Laity since the General Synod was created in 1970. The review of synodical government chaired by Lord Bridge of Harwich recommended in 1977 that deanery synods should be abolished and that the lay members of diocesan synods and General Synods should be chosen by parish representatives, each parish to have one for every 50 people on the electoral roll. The General Synod decided, however, to retain deanery synods. In July 2011 the Synod decided to ask for alternatives to the present electoral system to be further explored. The review group’s report is due to come to the General Synod this coming year.

Ben Bradshaw: Does not the complete failure of the House of Laity in the General Synod to reflect the overwhelming support in the diocesan synods for women bishops show that there is something deeply wrong with the system? We cannot wait for a new synod in 2015 for this to be resolved. I have to tell my hon. Friend that it must be resolved in months, not years, and if that means a single clause Measure and facing down the conservative evangelicals, as we in the Labour party faced down the militants in the 1980s, so be it.

Tony Baldry: On the women bishop’s Measure, the Church of England has to get on with it. I am sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate will able to reassure colleagues next week that it is getting on with it. So far as the format of General Synod is concerned, as I have said to the House on a number of occasions, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain how 42 out of 44 dioceses voted for women bishops, yet the motion failed in General Synod. I think that the next Archbishop of Canterbury will want to focus on growth in the Church, and if one wants to focus on growth, one needs to make sure that everyone feels involved. I hope, personally, that in due course we will be able to move to a system in which every member of the Church who is on an electoral roll has a vote for those who go to General Synod. That seems to be a straightforward system.

Diana Johnson: If an emergency arises that the country has to deal with, the House of Commons and the other place have the power to expedite legislation and deal with it quickly. Is there no power within the structures of the Church of England to expedite matters when there is an emergency? I think the issue is an emergency for the Church of England.

Tony Baldry: I hope the hon. Lady will be able to be present next Thursday for the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate. He, I am sure, will explain to her that the Church of England will expedite the issue as speedily as possible. At the start of
	his ministry I think that he will be very conscious that it will not be possible for the Church of England to get on to other matters such as growth and mission until we have resolved the issue of consecrating women to the episcopate.

David Nuttall: In the more than 40 years since the General Synod became the governing body of the Church of England, whether one looks at the number of churches, the number of clergy or the number in the congregation, by any measure it has presided over a period of decline. Does my hon. Friend agree that however difficult the process might be, there is now a very urgent need for reform?

Tony Baldry: I agree with hon. Friend. I am sure that Justin Welby, as the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, will make it clear that he sees it as his ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury to rebuild the Church. We have a once in a generation opportunity to start to grow the Church again. One in three parishes is growing. We need to work out how they are growing, and try to ensure that other parishes can grow similarly, if we are to have a Church of England which is truly a national Church speaking for the whole nation.

Michael Fabricant: I agree with everything the previous three questioners said and think that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) gave comprehensive answers, so I have nothing to add.

Mr Speaker: I hope that the moment will be recorded; it is a first, certainly for the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I, however, have something to add. The Second Church Commissioner’s last point was absolutely right: this is not a sect we are dealing with. I say that to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), whose assessment of our role in relation to the Church is completely and utterly wrong. The Church of England is established by law. We can turn down any changes to liturgy that it wants to make, for example. Is it not time we changed by law the system whereby people are elected to the Synod so that it is more representative and looks more like a national Church?

Tony Baldry: I am quite sure that the review that is taking place into the way people are elected to General Synod will try to ensure the greatest opportunity for people in the Church to have a vote and feel that they are represented. Parliament, for example, decided long ago that all of us—everyone in every parish—have a vote in elections for church wardens. One would think that at the very least in elections to General Synod everyone on a church electoral roll should have a vote.

Peter Bottomley: I stand as someone who failed twice to get elected to Synod—for Southwark—for being too right wing, and I could not do it in London for being too left wing. Should we not recognise that most of the members of Laity at Synod voted for women bishops, and should we not let women be ordained as bishops and trust the bishops to make arrangements in their diocese that are suitable?

Tony Baldry: That was a loss for both the diocese of Southwark and General Synod, because my hon. Friend would have made a great addition. He makes a really important point: the Church of England is an episcopal-led Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate and a number of bishops made powerful speeches in General Synod on why it was appropriate and right for there to be women bishops, and I hope that the broader Church will now listen to what the bishops are saying.

Parish Weddings

Andrew Selous: What the policy of the Church is when there is a sustained fall in the number of weddings in a parish.

Tony Baldry: Church of England marriages increased by 4% in 2010. The increase coincided with a national project by the Church to promote and encourage church weddings and communicate new rights to be married in church where people and their families have a qualifying connection.

Andrew Selous: I am delighted to hear about the increase in 2010, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the number of marriages in 2009 was the lowest since records began in 1900. In fact, the number of weddings has decreased in England and Wales from 426,000 in 1972 to 232,000. Some clergy do terribly well in increasing the number of marriages, only to see it fall back under their successors. Does my hon. Friend think that bishops could take a slightly closer interest in that, to try to encourage the good work done by some clergy?

Tony Baldry: We should all take an interest in that. Everyone in the Church of England wants to attract more weddings in church. Weddings are an important part of Church life. We want to build awareness of the Church’s enthusiasm for marriage. Every member of the clergy would want to care for couples and support them once they have been married in church, and hopefully those couples will want to stick with the church afterwards.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

Mr Speaker: I would not want the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to feel socially excluded, so we will hear from her.
	The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

Individual Electoral Registration

Fiona Mactaggart: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to prepare for the introduction of individual electoral registration.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has supported the introduction of individual electoral registration since 2003. It is taking a number
	of steps to prepare for this important chance. Subject to the successful passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, the commission will be responsible for developing guidance and setting performance standards for electoral registration officers, conducting research into the equity and completeness of the electoral registers and planning national public awareness campaigns to support the transition.

Fiona Mactaggart: Given the admission by Republican Senators and officials in the US that their election law changes were designed to suppress minority and Democrat
	votes, how can we be sure that individual registration in Britain does not have the same effect?

Gary Streeter: The hon. Lady raises an important point. We all want to increase the number of people who register to vote in elections. I remind her that this measure was introduced by her own party when in government. The Electoral Commission is confident that if the Government follow its advice there is no reason at all why the number of electors registered for the 2015 general election should not be at a very high level.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 10 December—Motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.
	Tuesday 11 December—General debate on the economy.
	Wednesday 12 December—Opposition Day [12th allotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by general debate on the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by general debate on live animal exports and animal welfare. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 December will be:
	Thursday 20 December—Debate on the interdepartmental ministerial group report on human trafficking.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business.
	I have previously asked the predecessor of the Leader of the House about equal marriage legislation. Every piece of equality legislation since the decriminalisation of homosexuality was passed by the previous Labour Government. We fully support plans to introduce equal marriage. Couples planning their future need certainty from the Government, not prevarication. The Government’s legislative timetable is not exactly packed, so will the Leader of the House commit to bringing forward legislation in this Session?
	We are grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on the Leveson report earlier this week. I congratulate Lord Justice Leveson on his report and his careful consideration of the evidence. The status quo is unacceptable; the victims of press intrusion deserve better. We welcome cross-party talks on how to implement the report, but there are clear divisions on the report between us and Conservative Front Benchers. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore commit to making available Government time for a vote on the proposals and, if there is a majority, time for the legislation that would follow?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming to the House the new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Croydon
	North (Steve Reed)? I have been looking at by-election history. In 2008, there was a by-election in Henley in which the then governing party came fifth. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that showed that Labour was “finished”. In the Rotherham by-election, the Liberal Democrats managed to scrape into eighth place, behind Labour, the UK Independence party, the British National party, Respect, the Conservatives, the English Democrats and a local vicar. Can the Leader of the House say whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement on the outlook for his party after this debacle?
	Yesterday we found out the full scale of the Government’s economic failure. The Prime Minister promised to balance the books by 2015, but he has broken that promise. The Chancellor promised to cut borrowing, but borrowing and debt figures have been revised up this year and for future years. The Government promised to grow the economy, but yesterday the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the economy would contract this year. The part-time Chancellor might try 4G Del Boy economics to hide his failure, but he cannot hide the truth. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this is the worst economic outlook since the 1920s. This is the consequence of a Government who got all the big decisions wrong. In October 2010, the Chancellor said:
	“What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit rating?”
	He then claimed that the rating was safe in his hands, but this morning it is clear that the Chancellor’s economic failure has put his prized triple A rating at risk.
	The measures announced in yesterday’s autumn statement will, according to the Treasury’s own figures, hit the poorest half of the country hardest. Those in work on modest earnings are paying the bill for this Government’s mismanagement of the economy, and at the same time the Government are giving a £100,000-a-year tax cut to the richest 8,000 people. How is that fair? We had an explanation yesterday in a Liberal Democrat briefing :
	“The only tax cuts the Tories support are ones for the very rich”.
	Helpful clarification was then offered by the Business Secretary, who said:
	“We have a different view to the Conservatives…on fairness”.
	Does the Leader of the House not think that a debate on fairness would give the Liberal Democrats the opportunity to remind themselves that they actually voted to give a tax cut to the richest 1%, and will he allow time for such a debate?
	After yesterday’s autumn statement, we know that the Government are borrowing £212 billion more than expected, that the benefit bill is £13 billion higher, that growth forecasts have been cut this year, next year and for every year until 2016, and that the Government have failed the only economic tests they set themselves. This is the price of economic failure. For all the Chancellor’s sleight of hand yesterday, the Treasury’s own figures reveal that the economy has not grown, that borrowing is up, that growth will be less, that spending will be cut and that unemployment will go up. This is the record of a Government who have made the wrong choices. This is the consequence of an economic strategy that is not working.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to my statement.
	There is no prevarication whatsoever on equal marriage. We have been very clear that, following the consultation, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will respond before Christmas, and indeed she will. I look forward to that and I hope that it will demonstrate our further determination to secure equal marriage, which was not achieved under a Labour Government, but can now be achieved under a coalition Government.
	I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about a debate on Leveson. It reminded me that when we discussed House business this time last week, the Leveson report had not been published. Doesn’t time fly when you’re having fun? I say to the hon. Lady that it is a bit premature to discuss the nature of future business of the House in relation to the Leveson report while my right hon. Friends, and indeed those on her own Front Bench, are engaged in discussions between themselves and with the newspaper editors, who have taken away from the Prime Minister and others the message that they must come up with plans that meet the Leveson principles and do so rapidly. We will hear more about that, I hope, later today.
	I will indeed take this opportunity to welcome the new Members of the House. The hon. Lady kindly wrapped that question with a reference to the 2008 Henley by-election. Ever since that day, the House has been graced with the presence of my parliamentary private secretary. If the new Members do half as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has done, they will do very well indeed.
	Most of what the hon. Lady had to say was about the autumn statement. She used it as an opportunity to try to restore the credibility of the Opposition’s Front Benchers after the lamentable failure of the shadow Chancellor yesterday, who had no idea what he wanted to say and was utterly confused. The truth of the matter is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able not only to maintain this country’s credibility in his determination to reduce the deficit—the deficit is coming down—but to say that inflation has come down, that we are making considerable strides forward in many of the emerging markets and that employment has been rising. There are 1.2 million more jobs in the private sector, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that at least two new jobs will be created in the private sector for every job that is lost in the public sector as a consequence of the inescapable necessity to control borrowing.
	I heard nothing from the hon. Lady about how the Labour party would control borrowing. Where would the Labour party’s deficit reduction plan come from? We hear nothing about that. She talked about fairness and taxes for the richest, but she will have noticed that the Chancellor’s autumn statement set out an intention to increase taxation of the richest. It is clear from the distributional consequences of the autumn statement that those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the biggest burdens. We have not heard from the Opposition whether they would go back to the 50p rate if they were ever back in government. We just do not know.
	Under the coalition Government, the personal tax allowance will have gone from £6,475 to £9,440 under the plans announced by the Chancellor—within touching
	distance of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Some 24 million taxpayers and their families will benefit from that and we are taking 2 million people out of tax altogether. Somebody working full time on a minimum wage will have seen their tax bill more than halve. When the hon. Lady talks about fairness, I think that we should talk about that kind of fairness too.
	I did not hear from the hon. Lady, on a practical question about the business of the House, whether the Opposition will vote for or against the welfare uprating Bill when it comes before the House. [ Interruption. ] She says from a sedentary position that we will have to wait and see. It is just like yesterday. The shadow Chancellor and the hon. Lady do not have a clue what they would do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there are two further statements to follow and, thereafter, two important debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. If I am to get anywhere near accommodating the level of interest, brevity from Front and Back Benchers alike will be imperative.

Matthew Offord: Can the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what consideration he has given to the impact of the rise in the pensionable age on those in receipt of permanent health insurance payments under schemes that were designed to end at the current retirement age?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are having a debate on the economy next Tuesday, which will present an opportunity to discuss many of the issues that have arisen from the autumn statement. I will certainly draw the attention of Treasury Ministers to this matter. It is worth noting that, not least because of the support that we are giving to the national health service, the number of people in this country who have private health insurance has gone down.

John Cryer: The Leader of the House may be aware that the London fire authority is looking at a plan to shut 17 fire stations across the capital, which includes cutting 50% of the fire cover in my constituency, which has some of the poorest wards in London. This is creating alarm across all parts of the House. Is it possible for the relevant Minister to give a statement or to have a short debate?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not remembering the precise date, but an Adjournment debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on fire stations and the fire and rescue authority. These are matters for the fire and rescue authority and the Mayor of London, but I do recall that Ministers responded to the debate. If there is anything to be added since it took place, I will ask Ministers to correspond with him.

Oliver Colvile: Last week, Plymouth and Cornwall were cut off by rail due to flooding and landslips. I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Chancellor that he will spend
	£5 billion on investing in our infrastructure and that part of the A30 in Cornwall will be dualled. Please can we have a wider debate on infrastructure in the south-west to discuss the railway line from Exeter to Plymouth, improvements to the A38 and the potential dualling of the A303?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he would consider seeking an Adjournment debate on economic performance and infrastructure improvements in the south-west to see how they are linked. Having lived in Exeter for four years, I have some sympathy with him. I remember how the A303 was back in those days. It is better now than it was then, but there are still a few bottlenecks.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will know that in the fog of gloom and misery that was yesterday’s autumn statement, some of us were expecting the Chancellor to make just a little announcement about how he was going to go after the big multinational companies that do not pay any tax—Google, coffee giants and water companies—and get some money for all those years that they have paid nothing. Why was there no mention of going after these people who take the profits but do not put anything back into their communities?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Chancellor yesterday. As my right hon. Friend set out, not only do the Government intend to introduce a general anti-abuse rule for the first time, but as a consequence of measures already being taken to tackle evasion and avoidance, we will bring in something like £7 billion more a year in tax revenue than under the previous Government.

Tessa Munt: Will the Leader of the House make time for a short debate to question the lack of any visible merit—and the outrageous lack of sensitivity—in the NHS in Somerset granting its management a 5% pay rise, and one individual a 6% pay rise, when the majority of front-line staff have to accept a pay freeze?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that subject. She may recall that regional pay was the subject of an Opposition day debate and a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) in Westminster Hall. From what was announced yesterday it is transparent that the Government are not proposing regional pay, and that is in line with evidence I gave to the NHS pay review body earlier in the year as Secretary of State for Health. We are pursing the path of using flexibility provided by the “Agenda for Change”. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however, and if such pay restraint is applied to NHS staff generally, it should apply equally to management.

Anne McGuire: On 10 July, the then Minister for Disabled People slipped out a written statement on Remploy and had to be dragged to the House. This morning, the current Minister for Disabled People, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), sneaked out another statement on Remploy, announcing 875 potential redundancies—[ Interruption. ]
	The Minister might well be getting briefed as he sits there. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, written ministerial statements are intended to be issued on non-controversial and straightforward matters, but this issue is neither of those things. Does the Leader of the House endorse such practice by the Minister for Disabled People, and will he ask her to come to the House next week to answer questions on that statement? I say to him: please do not tell me that I can address those issues at Work and Pensions questions on Monday. The decision about Remploy requires full scrutiny.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has informed the House perfectly well and properly through a written ministerial statement. The right hon. Lady is coming awfully close to challenging the view of the Speaker on whether an urgent question would be justified.

Damian Hinds: Last week, the Government announced that they will bring forward a facility for capping interest on payday loans. However, such loans are only one part of the high-cost sub-prime sector. May we have a debate on the entire high-cost sector, and on the problems within it and ways to sustainably solve them?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that on Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill in another place, the Government tabled an amendment to create a power that would limit agreements that impose unacceptable charges, including interest on lenders; it would make contravention of those agreements unenforceable, which is a strong power. The Bill will return to this House and we will have the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments on Monday.

Jim Shannon: Numerous members of the Patriotic March movement in Colombia have been murdered over the past few months. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or statement on the support that the British Government is offering to the Colombian Government to ensure safety for all as peace talks continue?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot immediately offer the prospect of time for debate. If I recall correctly, such issues were touched upon on Tuesday during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. Other Members will share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this matter, and he and others may look to secure an Adjournment debate, or something of that kind, to enable their views to be aired.

John Baron: Many hon. Members are concerned about the extent of cuts to the regular battalions under Army 2020, including the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and the ability of the Territorial Army to fill the gap. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that the House can be updated on the progress of the TA plans?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State for Defence recently made a statement on the reserve forces. There is a debate this afternoon on defence personnel, in which I encourage my hon. Friend
	further to pursue those questions. He will know from our exchanges that Ministers have completely understood the points that he and my hon. Friends have made on the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Ministers are approaching Army 2020 in a positive way, despite the necessity to make many difficult decisions.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on maternity pay? In the week when we had the happy news from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, we did not hear the unhappy news yesterday from the Chancellor that he is imposing a mummy tax in the form of a real-terms cut in maternity pay. Was it not slippery not to include that in the statement, if not actually treasonous?

Andrew Lansley: The Chancellor made the context perfectly clear in his autumn statement. Working-age benefits have risen by 20% over five years, but average earnings have risen by only 10%. It is therefore necessary to consider that the increase in those working-age benefits should be limited—to, he proposed, 1%. I cannot quite tell from the hon. Gentleman’s question whether he plans to support or oppose that.

Kris Hopkins: The Leader of the House might be aware that Airedale general hospital in my constituency has been named as one of two runners-up in the Dr Foster hospital guide as a result of low mortality and its high clinical efficiency rating in the past 12 months. May we have a statement on high-performance hospitals, so that the Health Secretary can join me in congratulating the chief executive, Bridget Fletcher, and her staff on winning such an accolade?

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the chief executive and her staff at Airedale general NHS foundation trust, which I had the privilege and pleasure of visiting several years ago—it is a fine hospital. It has a high reputation not only locally, but nationally.

Valerie Vaz: According to the same guide, there has been an increase of 13% and 17% over time in the deaths of my constituents. Given the difficulties outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the death of Owen Roberts, may we have an urgent debate on why £3 billion has been taken out of the NHS and not used for front-line services?

Andrew Lansley: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is saying. Hon. Members listened to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions and had the utmost sympathy with her circumstances. That is precisely why Members on both sides of the House are determined to support the leaders of the nursing profession in improving the quality of care and the care and compassion with which patients are treated—they should always be treated with dignity and respect. Frankly, that is not about resources. Resources are rising in the NHS, with the exception of the NHS in Wales, where there is an 8% real-terms cut. The hon.
	Lady is talking about England, but she bracketed England and Wales together. In Wales, the NHS budget is being cut; in England, the NHS budget is being increased.

Mark Pritchard: Given that thousands of entrepreneurs, business people and investors have returned to this country since the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p in the pound to 45p, may we have a debate on what impact reducing the top rate to the higher rate of 40p in the pound would have, and how many more thousands of people will return to this country?

Andrew Lansley: The Chancellor has made the right judgment in recognising that, in the year after the introduction of the 50p rate, the number of people reporting income of more than £1 million people halved, and the tax revenue from the richest went down by £7 billion. One must make a judgment. We cannot keep reducing the top rate of tax and hope continually to increase revenue, but it is important to support entrepreneurship and wealth creators. That is one reason why the further reduction in corporation tax by April 2014 to 21% will help put us in a very competitive position in the global race.

Keith Vaz: As the House is not sitting tomorrow, may I take the opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and Mrs Bercow a very happy 10th wedding anniversary?

Hon. Members: Creep!

Keith Vaz: There will be no Division on that.
	On the subject of families, can I ask the Leader of the House about the Succession to the Crown Bill? As he knows, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this last year. The Deputy Prime Minister chooses to use his own draftsmen to put the Succession to the Crown Bill through the House. Does the Leader of the House have a timetable for us, because he keeps telling us it will be introduced shortly? It is important that this is done before the royal baby is born.

Andrew Lansley: Can I put in my own bid to be creep of the day? It is of course the seventh anniversary of the Prime Minister’s taking up leadership of the Conservative party, so it is a chance to congratulate him too—I know which side my bread is buttered on.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s question, synchronicity being what it is—[ Interruption. ] It is always a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) here. We were unable to proceed with the Succession to the Crown Bill until all the realms of which Her Majesty is Head of State signified consent. I believe that that happened on Monday, before the Duchess of Cambridge was admitted to hospital and an announcement was made, and we are now in a position to introduce the Bill shortly.

Marcus Jones: Does my right hon. Friend share my disgust with Labour councillors on Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council who have procured political Christmas cards at the taxpayer-subsidised cost of £8 for 2,000? Can we have a debate on protecting the taxpayer against subsiding political campaigning?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members of this House are happy to send Christmas cards to their constituents and others at their own expense. I do not see why councillors should not do the same.

Pat Glass: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education came to the Select Committee on Education to answer questions on his plans to replace GCSEs. However, he did not answer questions. I do not mean that he avoided them, evaded them or gave non-answers—he point blank refused to answer questions from the Conservative Chair of the Committee and other Members. Given that the parliamentary role of the Education Committee is to scrutinise the Department for Education, is that not contempt of Parliament, and can we have a statement?

Andrew Lansley: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was perfectly happy to answer questions on matters for which he is responsible. He was not willing to answer questions relating to the views of Ofqual, as it is an independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair.

Mr Speaker: If there were an intention to raise the matter of a possible contempt it would have to be done formally through the Standards and Privileges Committee, so we will not dwell on that now. I simply mention that, and I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said.

Richard Graham: Last week, the Prime Minister visited Gloucester to see at first hand the work of the unique tri-service centre, managing the most difficult floods the country has seen since 2007. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the emergency services and partner agencies on their work in handling that difficult situation; in recognising the great improvements to flood defences made by the Environment Agency, Severn Trent and local councils; and in calling on the insurance sector to play its full part in making sure that every home is protected?

Andrew Lansley: I join my hon. Friend on all those points. We are committed to further investment in flood defences and the benefits it will deliver, and I entirely endorse his point on insurance. Negotiations are proceeding, and I hope the insurance industry and the Government arrive at an agreement soon and provide reassurance for people.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a debate on Fitch’s decision to put the UK’s triple A credit rating on negative watch following the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday? According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, debt will reach £1.5 trillion in 2018, while growth is estimated to be minus 0.1% for this quarter. May we have a debate on why the Chancellor might have exchanged our triple A for a triple dip?

Andrew Lansley: My recollection is that, in response to the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday, the bond markets demonstrated that his statement reinforced the credibility of the Government’s approach, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss these issues, time will be available in a debate on the economy next Tuesday.

Fiona Bruce: When can the House expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the plan for rebasing troops from Germany?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will be aware, following the autumn statement, the Defence Secretary, bearing in mind the opportunities presented by private finance 2 as a way of approaching these investments and the consequences of the announced reductions in resource spending, will not be proceeding with an announcement on the basing review until after Christmas in order to allow the Ministry of Defence to explore further funding options and opportunities with the Treasury.

Julie Hilling: Beth Sherbourne, from Bolton West, has just won the National Apprenticeship Service award for the best higher apprentice in the UK, and for the third year running, her company, MBDA, won the manufacturing excellence award for the best company for education links as well as the award for people excellence. Other high-tech manufacturing companies, however, continue to report difficulties in recruiting apprentice and graduate engineers. May we have a debate on how to ensure that schools promote engineering and apprenticeships among their pupils?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that the House will join her in congratulating her constituent and the company in her constituency. She makes an important point. There are 450,000—or thereabouts—apprentice opportunities each year; many of them are tremendous opportunities. I have seen in my constituency, at TWI—The Welding Institute—how people starting apprenticeships have gone through, acquired a degree and entered into the most senior positions in the company. It is a tremendous opportunity that is probably not sufficiently appreciated in schools—it is perhaps more appreciated in further education colleges—and she is right that we should encourage greater attention being paid to those opportunities.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have a debate on the nuclear fleet? We have the technology and ability to build a lot more of these power stations quickly, but Hinkley is still taking too long to get to fruition. We need to build nuclear power stations to keep the lights on. The dash for gas is fine, but the power that nuclear power stations produce will keep UK plc going.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In that context, EDF’s announcement earlier this week about life extensions for Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B will be helpful. The point he makes is important, and the Energy Bill, which has now been introduced to the House, gives that sense of progress and security. I remember several years ago the then Trade and Industry Select Committee constantly being told by the last Government that they were keeping the door open to nuclear power, but it was not true: simply because they were not doing anything about it, the door was closing. We are now recognising that nuclear power, as a base load capacity, is an essential part of our energy security.

Michael Connarty: On 4 December 1971, McGurk’s bar was blown up by an Ulster Volunteer Force bomb, killing my uncle,
	Philip Garry, plus 14 other people, including two children. On the 41st anniversary, a book was published by Ciarán MacAirt, whose grandmother, Kathleen Irvine, was also killed by the bomb. After all the years of investigation, there are still closed files and letters not available, and there was collusion. Clearly, the British Government, possibly up to the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, colluded and not only co-operated, but instructed that the false story be spread that this was a bomb carried by the people into that bar and that it was an IRA bomb in transit. Is it not now time for a proper investigation by the British Government into the facts of the case, with all the files being open and the Prime Minister coming here to apologise to the families and community for how they were maligned and, for six years, blamed for a bomb that was clearly a vicious act against them?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House will appreciate the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has on this matter. He will forgive me, but I am not privy to any of the details, although I will, of course, ask my right hon. Friends to look into the matter and respond to him.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on compensation claims by criminals? We read in today’s papers of a criminal who received £2,000 in compensation after being bitten by a dog that he was fleeing after breaking into a car. Are such claims not ridiculous and is it not time we had an age of austerity for compensation claims by criminals?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that the House has just voted through changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that that will focus criminal injuries compensation on victims, as it is intended to, and ensure that the more severe victims of crime get the compensation they require, rather than compensation sometimes being spread around in places where it is not so justified.

Tom Harris: The expensive and cumbersome licensing regime for the use of wild animals in circuses was approved by the House at the end of October. It has not yet come into effect, yet already we hear rumours that the Government intend to replace it with a full ban early in the new year. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government finally intend to respect the unanimously expressed will of the House and stop using lame excuses to prevent the Bill from coming into force?

Andrew Lansley: I am not aware that I am making any excuses whatsoever. We have made it clear that we will bring forward legislation on that, and that is still our intention.

Henry Smith: Argentina has consistently reneged on repaying World Bank loans worth around £10 billion. The United States Government have decided not to allow any more World Bank loans to be granted. France, Germany and even countries such as Spain have followed. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on when the United Kingdom will refuse to grant further loans to Argentina from the World Bank?

Andrew Lansley: I will certainly contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and ask her about that. She will no doubt take the opportunity to let not only my hon. Friend know the answer, but perhaps the House as well.

Andrew McDonald: Given that in my constituency there are 10 people chasing every job and given the constant demonisation of the long-term unemployed, young and old, may we have a debate on the calls made by families suffering the indignity of unemployment on our mental health and social care services?

Andrew Lansley: May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman? It is a pleasure to have him among us. He makes an important point on behalf of his constituents. We all recognise the impact that long-term unemployment can have. That is precisely why we are working through the Work programme to ensure that people get access to work—a quarter of those who have gone into the programme have accessed jobs—but in addition, not arriving at long-term unemployment is important. We are taking steps, following the last Government, to try to ensure that people have access to psychological therapies when they have anxiety, stress and depression associated with unemployment, and I hope that will continue.

Jason McCartney: Happy wedding anniversary, Mr Speaker. A weekend break in the Holme and Colne valleys would be a great way to celebrate your 10th wedding anniversary.
	The M62 motorway between Huddersfield, Leeds and Manchester has been an absolute nightmare for the past month. Yesterday morning two lanes were closed at Brighouse and at the teatime rush hour the M621 junction was closed. We regularly have debates about rail services in this House. May we have a debate about the importance of keeping our motorway network moving? Not doing so causes absolute chaos for commuters.

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in his place on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend said. I know that he and his colleagues in the Department feel strongly about reducing the duration of motorway incidents to keep traffic moving and, through the so-called CLEAR programme—collision, lead, evaluate, act and reopen—are working with the agencies and responders to deliver exactly that.

Lilian Greenwood: Nottingham now has 12 food banks, as hundreds of families, many in work, are forced to rely on charity to feed themselves and their children. Yesterday we found out that the Chancellor aims to hit those poor families even harder. Is it not time that we had a debate on child poverty?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady is of course free to raise this issue, and it might be appropriate for her to do so at Department for Work and Pensions questions on Monday. Child poverty has been falling, according to the last Labour Government’s definition, but we want to ensure that children move out of poverty and improve their
	conditions in the absolute sense. That is about work, and reducing the number of workless households has been a significant step in the right direction.

Dan Byles: It is now apparent that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been aware for some time of the practice by some unscrupulous onshore wind developers of de-rating, whereby they install a large wind turbine but run it at sub-optimal level in order to benefit from the higher subsidies that are supposed to be available only to small developers. When can we have an urgent debate on the problem, which is costing consumers money and giving renewable energy a bad name?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change take this issue seriously. They have acted to address a similar issue in relation to hydro sites, and are committed to doing the same for wind. They have met and discussed the issue with wind turbine manufacturers and with Renewables UK, and I will certainly ask them if they will respond to my hon. Friend. The debate on the Energy Bill might also provide an opportunity to discuss the issue.

Jonathan Reynolds: May we have a debate on how we can best honour the legacy of those British service personnel who have won the Victoria Cross? They include John Buckley from Stalybridge, who won the VC in 1857 for his gallant defence of the magazine at Delhi during the Indian mutiny. I am told that there is a memorial tablet in Delhi as testimony to his heroism, but his unmarked grave has just been discovered in a cemetery in Tower Hamlets, and it will take about £1,000 to guarantee him a proper gravestone. Will the Leader of the House help me to raise the profile of this issue with the public and help us to celebrate the work of the Victoria Cross Trust, which can make that happen?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and all other Members—and indeed those outside the House—would benefit from a visit to the Imperial War museum, just south of the river, which has an excellent new display of Victoria Cross medals that also describes the heroism that led to the awarding of them. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s feelings about his constituent and others.

Mark Pawsey: I recently met my constituent, Stephen Leadbetter, who has suffered from lung problems since he was 14. He is now 22, and has recently been diagnosed as having alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Stephen believes that if he had been diagnosed earlier, his health would not now be declining so rapidly. May we have a debate about raising awareness of this and similar conditions?

Andrew Lansley: It is important that the Department of Health should continue to support research and development into rare genetic diseases, and we have protected the research and development budget in order to do so. We consulted on a rare disease plan, and published a summary of the consultation responses last month. Work is on track to produce a UK rare diseases plan by the end of 2013, which could help my hon. Friend’s constituent and many others.

Catherine McKinnell: Further to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) asked earlier, may I add my voice to calls for an urgent oral statement on the closure of Remploy factories? Of the 1,000 people who have already been made redundant, only 63 have found jobs. That is scandalous, particularly in the light of the written statement today that a further 875 jobs are now at risk.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have heard the reply that I gave earlier, but she might also wish to raise this issue at Department for Work and Pensions questions on Monday, as that would be an appropriate time to do so.

Glyn Davies: Over the past week, there has been yet more negative publicity about the Liverpool care pathway, which is so important in minimising end-of-life suffering. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Members of the House have an opportunity to debate this complex issue, rather than leaving it to the sensationalist reporting in national newspapers?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that that matter is being reviewed by some of the leading clinical bodies and by those representing families and other groups. I will of course talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health about it. The Liverpool care pathway, when properly used with informed consent, can ease people’s circumstances as they move towards the end of life, and it is important to recognise how it can be used properly.

Gregg McClymont: The Leader of the House will be aware that this morning another nail has been hammered into the coffin of the Scottish National party’s claim that a separate Scotland would automatically become part of the European Union, in the form of a letter written to the Houses of Parliament. Will he facilitate a debate on accession to the European Union, so that as Scottish voters approach the referendum in 2014, they are able to understand the full implications of that decision for Scotland’s place in the European Union?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is a pity that that further information was not available when the House debated Scotland and the Union—just last Thursday, I believe. The House expressed its view very forcibly in that debate. As the hon. Gentleman says, the evidence demonstrating that Scotland is better off in the Union and the Union is better off with Scotland will continue to grow.

Bob Blackman: The Government moved swiftly to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal who were so shamefully treated by the Labour party. The one set of people excluded from compensation were the trapped pre-1992 annuitants, all of whom could be compensated within the envelope of money set aside by the Treasury. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement or a short debate so that we can ensure that these weak, elderly, vulnerable pensioners are properly compensated in their later life?

Andrew Lansley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I am sure that many thousands of those policyholders are grateful to him for his advocacy. If I may, I will ask my colleagues in the Treasury to look at the position for pre-1992 annuitants and I will let my hon. Friend and the House know if anything further can be done to help.

Diana Johnson: May I first thank the Leader of the House for his assistance in helping the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs find the 300 letters that my constituents had written to him, which he seemed to have lost? He has now found them, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his help. I would, however, like to ask him if he could assist me a little further in respect of the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. In a letter dated 26 June this year from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) who is responsible for crime and security, I was told that membership of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was being agreed through the usual channels and that the Committee was expected to report in the autumn. It is now well past the autumn, so I wonder whether the Leader of the House would investigate where this Bill has got to?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, and I will write to the hon. Lady about that.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have a debate on the economic impact of the autumn statement on the east midlands, where 1.8 million individuals will benefit from an increase in their personal allowances, 325,000 businesses will be cheering an extension of the small business rate relief scheme and, more importantly, 2.7 million motorists will breathe a sigh of relief at the fact that this Government have scrapped the fuel duty increase planned by the previous Labour Government?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that I did not hear a word from the shadow Leader of the House about the cancellation of the fuel duty increases, nor about the simple fact that every time anybody goes to the petrol pumps and puts 50 litres of petrol in their tank, they will have saved £5 because they are not paying the petrol duties voted for before the last election by the Labour party.

Bill Esterson: The Attorney-General said that he would apply to the High Court for new inquests into the deaths of the 96 people who died at Hillsborough and that he would make that application in early December. It is now early December, so has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication from the Attorney-General as to whether he expects to make that application as early as next week, and whether he will make a statement?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know how my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has sought to act as quickly as he can, as he has explained.
	I am sure that when he has anything further to add, he will make the House aware of it.

Peter Bone: The lady in my house says that it is always a miracle when you get to a wedding anniversary. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that section 1.2.a of the ministerial code calls for the “principle of collective responsibility” to apply to “all Government Ministers”? May we have a statement next week from a Conservative Minister explaining what it means to Conservative Ministers and a statement from a Liberal Democrat Minister to say what it means to Liberal Democrat Ministers?

Andrew Lansley: It would be rather easier to reply to my hon. Friend if he asked a question rather than making an allusion.
	The principle of ministerial collective responsibility is precisely as it has always been. Ministers speak on behalf of the Government, and, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, if it is clear that Ministers have not had an opportunity to complete their scrutiny of an issue, in the circumstances of a coalition Government it is entirely proper for Ministers—more than one Minister; in this case, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—to reflect ongoing considerations within the Government. It is an accurate reflection of the policy of the Government at that time.

Ian Lavery: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on an ever-increasing health risk? I refer to the impact of wind turbines on people living near wind turbines and wind turbine farms, more and more of whom are coming to my surgeries suffering from severe mental health problems.

Andrew Lansley: Time does not permit me to enter into a debate about the health effects of wind turbines, but I know that there are various arguments, and I have read some of the competing literature, as it were. I will of course draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Energy, and will ask them to respond.

Chris Bryant: When businesses sacked staff by text message, that was rightly condemned throughout the country. People said that it was cowardly and despicable. When, a few years ago, Burberry announced the closure of its factory in Treorchy at the beginning of December, that was condemned as well, on the grounds that it was the wrong time of the year to do such a thing. Today, the Government have done both those things together: they have announced by e-mail that a lot of people working in Remploy factories are to lose their jobs, and they have done it in the run-up to Christmas.
	In a way, I almost do not want the Leader of the House to respond to what I have said, but I do want him to think about this. Please, please may we have an oral statement on Monday? The people who work for Remploy are very vulnerable and need to hear the arguments in full from a Minister in the House, and we need to be able to ask questions about the specific situation in all our many constituencies.

Andrew Lansley: I think I have made it clear to the House that, in my view, informing the House by means of a written ministerial statement is perfectly proper. An oral statement is not simply an expression of the importance of an issue; it is made by a Minister who is announcing policy, and, as far as I am aware, what was conveyed in the written ministerial statement did not represent any change in policy. It recognised that, as had been anticipated, the Remploy board would conclude its assessment of the stage 2 businesses. Remploy is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department has kept the House fully informed, but the statement did not represent any change of policy on the part of the Department.

West Coast Rail Franchise

Patrick McLoughlin: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on what went wrong with the west coast franchise agreement and what we are doing to put things right.
	I shall begin by updating the House on the Laidlaw inquiry, and on the decisive action that we are taking in response. I shall then inform the House of the new deal with Virgin Trains—including an enhanced service—that will begin this weekend. My approach to all this, from the start, has been to come to the House to explain the situation openly, quickly and clearly, and it is in that spirit that I make my third statement on the subject today.
	Let me deal first with the Laidlaw inquiry. On 3 October, I announced the cancellation of the competition to run the inter-city west coast franchise because of the discovery of unacceptable flaws in the process run by the Department for Transport. As I explained to the House on 15 October, I launched two independent inquiries. I asked the first inquiry body, led by Sam Laidlaw, to look into what happened and why, and I am publishing Mr Laidlaw’s final report today. I asked the second body, led by the Eurostar chairman, Richard Brown, to focus on any lessons to be learnt for the purpose of future rail franchising. That inquiry is well advanced, and I expect to receive Mr Brown’s report by the end of the year. I shall publish it after that. I have placed a copy of Mr Laidlaw’s final report in the Vote Office, and I am placing a copy of my Department’s response to it in the Library. I do not hide from the seriousness of his findings. They make extremely uncomfortable reading for the Department. What happened caused serious problems for bidding firms, including FirstGroup, which was in no way at fault. Action must, and will, be taken.
	Let me turn to the detail. Mr Laidlaw confirms much of what he first touched on in his interim report. He finds that the Department wrongly calculated the amount of risk capital bidders would have to offer to guarantee their franchise proposals against default, and he says that these incorrect figures were varied in ways that were wrong. Significantly, he also states for the first time that Ministers made the original 14 August provisional award without being told about the flaws and after being given “inaccurate reports”.
	Mr Laidlaw also confirms that if his recommendations on strengthening the organisation are acted upon quickly, the Department will be able to do its job correctly in the future. There is nothing in the report to suggest that the flaws discovered in this franchise competition existed in other procurements in the Department.
	Finally, Mr Laidlaw confirms that he has seen no evidence of bias against Virgin. He also offers a clear prescription, which we are already acting on. The Department will ensure that all future franchise competitions are delivered with a clear timeline, rigorous management and the right quality assurance. We will also create a simpler and clearer structure and governance process for rail franchise competitions. That will include the appointment of a single director general with responsibility for all rail policy and franchising, and we
	will ensure that we have the right mix of professional skills inside the Department and, where necessary, from professional external advisers.
	I thank Mr Laidlaw for carrying out such a comprehensive review to such a tight timetable. Any specific personnel issues resulting from what has gone on are—and must, of course, remain—for the permanent secretary.
	Secondly, let me turn to the future of the west coast main line. In all my actions, I have put the service to passengers first. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that my Department has negotiated terms with Virgin Rail Group to allow Virgin Trains to continue running the west coast service for up to 23 months. Our intention is to run a full competition for the longer term franchise to follow on from that.
	The terms we have negotiated with Virgin secure a continued service for passengers at the same levels they enjoy today, and in some cases better. The timetable that was already agreed for December 2012 will operate, and today the last of the 106 Government-funded Pendolino carriages comes into service. That will allow more trains and longer trains on this vital route. That timetable includes a new hourly service between London and Glasgow.
	I also want to see more improvements, including the introduction of new services from London to Blackpool and Shrewsbury. Subject to Virgin securing the track access rights to provide them and to our completing a value-for-money assessment, I hope that both of these new services will be introduced from December 2013.
	The Laidlaw inquiry has told us that changes to the Department’s governance and structure are needed. We are carrying them out, and we have a new deal for the west coast main line. This has been an extremely serious issue for my Department and for the civil service, but I am determined that we learn the lessons and get on with the job we are here to do. With our commitment to High Speed 2 and the increase in capital spending on roads announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week, the Government are committed to improving our transport network and backing our railways. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the report?
	The Secretary of State conceded to the Transport Committee that what had been uncovered even in the Laidlaw inquiry interim report was “damning”. It is, indeed, damning, and the final report is even more so.
	For all the efforts by the Government in briefing after briefing to pin the blame on just three civil servants and to hide behind an internal human resources process, the results of which will never be made public, some things are very clear. It was decisions and failures by Ministers that led to the collapse of rail franchising, at huge cost to the taxpayer. The Laidlaw report is clear. It was Ministers who decided to change franchising policy; they decided not just to move to longer franchises, but to replace a revenue-risk sharing mechanism that
	had worked for many years with a complex new model requiring a best guess at GDP 15 years ahead. It was Ministers who oversaw a bizarre structural reorganisation of the Department that left no one in charge of rail. The Secretary of State has now said he will reverse that— finally, we have an acceptance of ministerial responsibility. It was Ministers who chose to axe more than a third of the staff at the Department in a year, with little thought for the consequences of the loss of expertise. And it was Ministers who axed external audits, removing quality assurance from the process. These were deliberate decisions taken by this incompetent Government.
	It was also Ministers who failed to act when warning after warning was flagged up to them as this franchise unravelled. Why did alarm bells not ring at the fact that this process had not one but three senior responsible owners? It is not surprising that the Laidlaw report proposes just one in future—that is the whole purpose of a senior responsible owner. Does the Secretary of State not accept that Ministers have an obligation to ask questions and not just rely on what they are being told, not least when they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money? It is clear from this report that they failed completely in their responsibility to do that.
	The Secretary of State must now give taxpayers and fare payers some straight answers. First, has he received clear legal advice that will reassure taxpayers that he has not left the Department open to legal challenge as a result of his decision to hand out a two-year contract with no competition? Secondly, are reports correct that he has agreed a quid pro quo deal with First, whereby it will be granted an extension on its First Great Western franchise on a similar basis? Thirdly, the Government expected to receive tens of millions of pounds in dividend payments over the next two years from the west coast franchise and would have received more than £800 million from the great western franchise had First not exercised its right not to extend that contract—can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the management contracts he has been forced into, taxpayers will receive none of those payments? Fourthly, the terms of the deal that has been struck with Virgin allow the margin of 1% on revenue agreed for the first year to rise for the second—by how much could it rise and at what cost to the taxpayer? Finally, will the Secretary of State now come clean with the House on the full cost to taxpayers of the collapse of the Government’s franchising programme? There are media reports from the industry that the final cost could run into not tens of millions but hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he tell the House, taxpayers and fare payers what figure he has been given by his officials?
	Despite all the Secretary of State’s efforts, no one is going to fall for the Government’s attempt to wriggle off the hook and evade responsibility for this shambles. They can devise a complex process of multiple reviews, they can hide behind confidentiality and legal privilege, and they can reshuffle Ministers as many times as they like, but the truth is that when commuters go back to work in the new year and find that their fares have gone up by as much as 6% above inflation they will know that it was Ministers from this incompetent Government who, instead of imposing a strict cap on fare rises, blew taxpayers’ money on this franchise fiasco.

Patrick McLoughlin: I had hoped that I had given the hon. Lady adequate time to read the report, but it seems that I did not. First, I will deal with her points about Ministers. I refer her to page 44, where paragraph 4.118.2 says that
	“inaccurate statements were made to the then Minister of State in writing as to the manner in which the CAC”—
	the contract award committee—
	“had approached the SLF sizing process in respect of First’s bid at its meeting on 27 June”.
	If inaccurate information was given to Ministers, a fact stated in the report, Ministers would have acted in good faith on the information they were given.
	May I also make the point that is made on page 63 of the report? It states that
	“in implementing substantial cost savings required by the Government’s spending review in 2010, the DfT significantly reduced its headcount, the number of contractors used and its use of external consultants.”
	Mr Laidlaw goes on to say:
	“That is not to say however that, with appropriate escalation…of the issues, sufficient resources could not or would not have been found.”
	There was no significant escalation of the issue, so I think there is truth in that.
	A number of parts of the report refer to the Minister of State, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), asking questions and I am afraid that there was a damning failure by the Department that must be put right. The hon. Lady says that I seek somehow to blame three civil servants. I have never, in any of the statements I have made in the House or privately, mentioned the names of any civil servants. That is a matter for the permanent secretary. We now have the HR report and the permanent secretary is considering that and what will happen in the future. I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that.
	The hon. Lady talks about the position with First Great Western and its contract to run its railway line. May I remind her who negotiated that contract? It was inherited by the Government and was not our contract at all. If she feels that there are any problems with it, then excuse me but it is not the responsibility of the Government. She asked a specific question about the second year of the contract with Virgin Trains and I will write to her with the answer.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State read two quotations from the report, which both implied to me a severe organisational failure. Did Laidlaw have anything to say about the position of the permanent secretary in all this?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I think I said to my hon. Friend when I made my first statement on this matter, there are obviously serious questions to answer. The present permanent secretary took his post in April, when many of the incidents to which we are referring had already taken place.

Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State acted decisively when he became aware of these issues, but the standing of the Department has been severely damaged by this episode. Three franchises were postponed and the £40 million is simply the first
	stage of the cost to the public purse. What lessons does the Secretary of State take from this incident for future ministerial responsibility?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I know her Committee will see Mr Laidlaw and no doubt others during their deliberations on this subject. There are a number of lessons not just for Ministers but for the civil service as a whole and on closer reading of the report they become apparent. I hope that this sort of episode will not happen again to any Government.

Paul Maynard: The Secretary of State will be unsurprised to hear me welcome the news about direct services to Blackpool. Does he agree that any infrastructure investment is only as good as the economic planning by local stakeholders? Will he encourage local councils and the local enterprise partnership to meet local MPs urgently to discuss how to take advantage of that announcement and not wait until December 2013 to decide what to do about it?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for the way in which he has campaigned for this service. I know that he will be pleased by the intention I have announced today. As I have said, it is an intention and is not absolutely tied down as there are a few processes to go through. Given the way in which he has shown leadership, I very much hope that he gets that message across to the stakeholders involved so that we can make progress.

Gerald Kaufman: Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his very best to clear up an appalling mess that he inherited from his predecessor? Although of course matters of personnel in his Department are, as he says, the responsibility of the permanent secretary, the overall administration was the responsibility of his predecessor and it is unacceptable that she complacently remains a member of the Government having left this expensive mess. I am travelling up to my home in Manchester this afternoon. What am I to say to the excellent train crew who will be looking after me and all the other passengers about the security of their jobs, in which they have the right to be confident and which has been left in total dubiety by what happened before the Secretary of State took over?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I am grateful for the conservative way in which the right hon. Gentleman made his point. What he can say to the crew on the west coast main line is that both this Government and, in fairness, the previous Government have invested huge amounts of public money in that line—some £9 billion. I am glad to be able to say today that we have completed the delivery of the 106 new Pendolino carriages to show our support for that line. I hope that my announcement today and the fact that I have not done what I initially said I would do, which was a short-term contract, then a medium-term contract, gives train crew security and that they can work with their company for the future franchise.

Daniel Kawczynski: I was disappointed with the shadow Secretary of State for Transport. When we called Sir Richard Branson into the House of Commons, he and his officials specifically
	stated that they had first raised concerns about the bidding process with the Labour Government and Lord Adonis. I welcome the announcement of a direct service for Shrewsbury. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and I have long campaigned, along with other Shropshire MPs, for this vital service for Shropshire, which will be a great boost for tourism and business for Shrewsbury, the county town. When we finally have that service I will invite the Secretary of State to join me on the train from Shrewsbury to London and I will buy him a drink on that journey.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is getting into the Christmas cheer a little early. He, along with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), have been vociferous in making the case for a service to Shrewsbury and other stops on the way. There is still work to be done, but I very much hope we can get that service by December next year.

Derek Twigg: I have not seen the report so perhaps the Secretary of State can answer this question. He refers to the risk capital that bidders had to put forward as a guarantee and says that Laidlaw said that Ministers were not told about the flaws after being given inaccurate reports. What questions did Ministers ask about the capital that bidders would have to offer to guarantee the bid?

Patrick McLoughlin: I was not in those meetings, for obvious reasons, but I know that Ministers were constantly probing. Mr Laidlaw saw the former permanent secretaries at the Department—not just the present one, but the former ones—and spoke to former Ministers there too.

Graham Evans: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to award an interim franchise to Virgin Trains, as this provides a great deal of stability for passengers up and down the country. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Virgin staff on that line, who throughout this very difficult time have always acted with great professionalism?

Patrick McLoughlin: I had a meeting just the other day with some disabled people. They sang the praises of Virgin Trains as providing some of the best services to disabled people. I was pleased to be able to pass that message on to Sir Richard Branson when I met him yesterday.

Michael Weir: The Secretary of State said that the Brown report would look at the lessons learned for future rail franchises. Perhaps the biggest lesson is that the whole system is a shambles, but given that the report is due shortly, what process does he have in place for taking account of its lessons in the negotiations with Virgin for the franchise in the immediate future?

Patrick McLoughlin: The truth is that what both Governments have recognised about franchising is that it has brought massive passenger growth on the railways and the railways have flourished since franchising has taken place. The hon. Gentleman asks me to say what implications the Brown report will have for franchising. I think I had better wait till I receive it before I answer.

Simon Wright: I welcome the degree of transparency that Ministers have brought to these matters. What plans is the Secretary of State making to foster a culture in which admissions of fault are freely made in the Department and processes paused and rectified where necessary? Is it not right that if mistakes are found, hands must be held up?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the transparency that I have demonstrated today. I hope I do not have to do it too often.

Mark Lazarowicz: Edinburgh is served by both the west coast main line and the east coast main line services, and between the two there have been three occasions in recent years when the franchise process has gone wrong. Given that the Government will have to sort out the franchise system, not just for the west coast main line, would it not make sense now to decide to keep services on the east coast main line operated by the current operator and allow it to get the benefits of closer co-operation with Network Rail, rather than force it to go through a franchise process again?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to too many conclusions at the start. When the previous Government brought in Directly Operated Railways to run the east coast main line, they made it very clear that they would want to move to a franchise process and re-let the franchise, and that is certainly the position that this Government take.

Cheryl Gillan: The welcome announcement of extra capacity and services on the west coast main line drives a coach and horses through one of the prime reasons for High Speed 2, which is to reduce overcrowding on the WCML. Given the stark warnings of the Laidlaw report, particularly chapter 7, which identifies failings in the capability and capacity of the Department for Transport, how can anyone trust the Department with what will be the largest peacetime spend on a project? Is it not time the Secretary of State took another brave decision and consigned this poorly managed, ill-conceived and increasingly thinly justified project to the waste paper basket?

Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend is vociferous on this issue on behalf of her constituents. She is asking me to prejudge announcements that I will make next year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear yesterday that we will be moving forward with HS2. I look forward to welcoming her to the Department next week.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the previous question, will the Secretary of State clarify whether there are any implications for the value-for-money exercise that was carried out on High Speed 2 and, if there are, whether he will be asking the civil service to go back over them again?

Patrick McLoughlin: That is a valid question, but of course, as I have said, this is a franchise exercise that went wrong. High Speed 2 is a capital project that I think will benefit the United Kingdom and our long-term
	capacity. No railway line has been built north of London for over 100 years, so it is about time we increased capacity.

Nigel Mills: The Secretary of State said that there were no implications from the Laidlaw report for any other procurement in his Department, but the interim findings clearly set out that there were concerns about the Department’s management structure and the quality assurance process. Is he still confident that there is no need to review the Thameslink rolling stock contract to ensure that no mistake was made in it as well?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have of course looked at that situation. I believe that the contract that was announced some time ago will be coming to a conclusion in the near future.

Bill Esterson: The failure of the franchising system, at a cost of £40 million, compares with how the east coast franchise has been taken in-house, saving nearly £200 million. Is it not time that consideration was given to bringing the west coast franchise, and every other franchise, back in-house in line with the successful model used for the east coast franchise?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the hon. Gentleman, in a rather convoluted way, has called for the renationalisation of the railways. That is certainly not something this Government will do. If he can convince his Front Benchers that that might be the right way forward, we will be interested to see that development.

Iain Stewart: I very much welcome the additional services and carriages that the Secretary of State has announced. In addition, both Virgin and FirstGroup pledged in their bids significant long-term enhancements to services on the west coast main line. Whatever conclusions are reached following the Brown report, will he ensure that these additional benefits are still secured for passengers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry, but I missed the last part of my hon. Friend’s question. I know that he, as a member of the Transport Committee, will continue to press for a very good service through his constituency.

Gregg McClymont: The Secretary of State will be aware that the three civil servants suspended over this fiasco have this morning been reinstated. What does that say about the judgment of leading officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport, and can he elaborate on the reinstatement?

Patrick McLoughlin: Staffing is a matter for the permanent secretary, who received the Stow report, which dealt with human resources. The suspensions took place as a precautionary measure while the report was being produced. Obviously, consequences will flow from the permanent secretary receiving that report, and those will become public in due course.

James Duddridge: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the decision on the west coast main line, but has he considered the Essex Thameside franchise and whether C2C should be given a similar concession?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am waiting to receive the Brown report, which will, I hope, take us further on lessons to be learned for future franchising. I will be most insistent on passengers receiving the services that they are currently getting, and, where possible, an enhanced service.

Ian Lavery: Has the Transport Secretary assessed the potential for running the west coast main line under public ownership and what the benefits might be?

Patrick McLoughlin: I believe that the way in which the west coast main line is run by Virgin has been very popular with Members, not on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches, who have announced their intention to support that franchise.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank the Secretary of State for the speed with which he has dealt with this and the integrity that he has shown throughout in dealing with this difficult problem. My constituents are still seeing much needed improvements, with extra carriages and the line to Blackpool, but I hope he will forgive me if I remind him that Fleetwood remains a town with a railway line but without a railway service.

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not mind my hon. Friend reminding me of that, and I know that he will do so on many occasions when he gets the opportunity. I look forward to having discussions and conversations with him about how we can possibly improve the situation in which his constituents find themselves, but I hope that he welcomes the fact that the line has come part of the way to his constituency, if not yet all the way.

William Bain: The west coast main line is of huge importance to the Scottish economy, as it carries half a million passengers a year along its whole length for business and tourism purposes. What assurances has the Secretary of State received this morning from Virgin trains about whether the 248 workers who are employed by the company in Scotland will have security in their jobs for the future?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not responsible for the personnel decisions of Virgin trains, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to the company. I hope he welcomes the fact that I have announced today the completion of 106 new Pendolinos and the hourly service to Glasgow, which are substantial improvements in this service for people in Scotland.

Philip Hollobone: May I praise my right hon. Friend for launching these inquiries so soon after he took office? However, while Parliament holds Ministers to account, who holds the Sir Humphreys to account? There is a stink about this process among the permanent secretariat in our civil service. What has happened to the previous permanent secretary in the Department—is he or she still in the civil service? Is the current permanent secretary going to take any responsibility?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend says that Parliament holds Ministers to account. In fact, it is not only Parliament that holds Ministers to account, because that also happens
	through the Select Committee procedures, on which I will certainly not lecture my hon. Friend, and that applies to permanent secretaries and officials as well. There will undoubtedly be other reports not only by the Transport Committee but by other Select Committees and by the National Audit Office. Various reports will come out on this subject.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State agree to meet staff representatives through their trade union to discuss and consider the ongoing uncertainties and concerns about this contract?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always happy to meet various bodies, and if the hon. Gentleman puts a proposal to me I will certainly consider it.

Marcus Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on using the interim finance to bring forward further service improvements on the west coast main line. He will know that we are meeting next week to discuss some of these issues, but will he take my comments as a bid for the return of some of the Virgin off-peak services that the previous Government took away from Nuneaton in 2008?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has just given me a taster of what our meeting next week will be about. I will no doubt have a better explanation for him then. He has been a very strong voice for Nuneaton in trying to get extra facilities for his constituents.

Lucy Powell: It is now clear what a complete shambles this whole affair has been and how much time and money has been lost. Fast, frequent and reliable trains are critical to the Greater Manchester economy, but with nearly three years’ delay until the new franchise comes on track, vital investment decisions will put the reliability and speed of this service at risk, which our economy can ill afford. How will that be addressed and where will the money come from for this much needed investment?

Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the hon. Lady to this place. I am sure she will be a prominent speaker on transport issues over the years to come. I would point out to her that the levels of investment that we are putting into the railways are as impressive—if not more so, given the financial situation the country finds itself in—as what the previous Government put in. I met council leaders in Manchester a few weeks ago and talked about a huge amount of investment that is going into the Manchester area. I have already mentioned the completion of the Pendolino trains, and the purchase of new carriages will enhance the service for her constituents and the people of Manchester.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the announcement that a new direct rail link from Shropshire to London will start from next December. I pay tribute to him and the Minister of State for all their work. I also pay tribute, in a cross-party spirit, to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), my hon.
	Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and my hon. and dear Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for all their work. In the ongoing discussions with Virgin, could the important Shropshire market town of Wellington and the important town of Telford also be considered for the timetable?

Patrick McLoughlin: I did not actually announce the confirmation of that service, but I very much hope that it will be confirmed. I accept my hon. Friend’s bid for it to stop at other stations on the way, but we will just have to see what progress we make.

Glyn Davies: When the direct line from Euston to Shrewsbury was withdrawn, it was a huge blow to the whole of central Wales—to the tourism industry, the economy and the travelling public. Will the Secretary of State accept my constituents’ appreciation of the fact that that direct link has been restored by today’s announcement, a full two years before it would have been if the FirstGroup bid had gone ahead? Will he also join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on the first trip, on which I will buy coffee for both of them?

Patrick McLoughlin: By the sounds of it, we will have a full train on that particular trip. I had better talk to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to make sure that the timetable is conducive to the House’s sitting times.

Jason McCartney: I remind my right hon. Friend of the chaos, cost and uncertainty that resulted from the east coast main line collapsing not just once, but twice under the previous Government. With that in mind, will he update the House on the progress of that franchise?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly pointing out that mistakes and things that go wrong in franchising are not new and that they have happened in the past. As I said, I am awaiting the Brown report, which will tell us about future franchising and will be an important part of our debate on it.

Mark Pawsey: The Secretary of State’s decision today will provide welcome stability to the many users of the west coast main line in my constituency. I know that they will be pleased to be able to continue to travel on Virgin trains. I welcome the fact that, under the interim contract, he is not just maintaining the status quo, but providing improvements, such as a new direct service to Rugby from Scotland for the first time since 2008.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the new services. The simple fact is that the train operators are very much aware of the demand for new and regular services. As anyone who has witnessed today’s statement will know, we are coming under increasing pressure to expand them and certainly not to decrease them.

Peter Bone: On behalf of the House, may I thank the Secretary of State for coming here for the third time to make a statement on this matter? In all my time in the House, this has been a
	unique experience. For the first time, something has gone wrong in a Department and a Minister has had the courage to come here to admit it and to do something about it. I have never seen that before. With regard to his former role, will the Secretary of State encourage other Ministers to do the same thing?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think Ministers are always ready to hold up their hands when something goes wrong. We need to be straight with the British people. I would not have expected such applause from my hon. Friend, bearing in mind the occasional crossed words that we may have had when I was in my previous role.

Benefits Uprating (2013-14)

Steve Webb: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the uprating of social security benefits and pensions for 2013-14. I shall place in the Vote Office full details of the new rates that are due to come into force from the week of 8 April 2013 for each pension and benefit, and arrange for copies of a schedule of the new rates to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As part of his statement yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the rates of tax credits for 2013-14. Today, I will announce the uprating of the social security benefits and pensions for which my Department is responsible.
	Even in these difficult times, the coalition Government have stood by their promise for those who have worked hard all their lives. Specifically, we will honour our triple guarantee commitment to increase the basic state pension by the greater of earnings, prices or 2.5%. As prices and average earnings for September 2012 were below 2.5%, the floor of our triple guarantee is activated. Therefore, even while earnings growth remains slow, we will not repeat a small rise like the 75p rise in 2000.
	From April 2013, the new rate of the basic state pension will be £110.15 a week for a single person, which is up £2.70 a week on last year. The House may be interested to hear that that means that the basic state pension is forecast to be almost 18% of average earnings—a higher share than at any time in the past 20 years.
	Let me turn to additional state pensions, which are often referred to as state earnings-related pension schemes or SERPS. Unlike the Labour party, which froze SERPS in 2010, the coalition uprated SERPS by the full value of the consumer prices index in 2011 and 2012. I am pleased to announce that this year SERPS pensions will rise by 2.2%, which means that the total state pension increase for someone with a full basic state pension and an average additional pension will be £3.35 a week or around £175 a year.
	On pension credit, each year the standard minimum guarantee must be increased at least in line with earnings. That would imply an increase of 1.6% for 2013, which would mean our poorest pensioners receiving a smaller increase than the one we are paying for the basic state pension. We think that would be unfair, so I am pleased to announce that we will make equivalent arrangements to those that we put in place last year, which will increase the standard minimum guarantee by the increase in the cash value of the basic state pension. From next year, the single person rate of the guarantee credit will rise by £2.70, taking the weekly income from this safety-net benefit to £145.40. For couples, the increase will be £4.15, taking their new total to £222.05 a week.
	Also consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay the above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee will be found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income may see less of an increase.
	This year, the coalition will ensure that those who face additional costs because of their disability and who have less opportunity to increase their income through paid employment will see their benefits increase by the
	full value of CPI. Therefore, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance and the main rate of incapacity benefit will all rise by the statutory minimum of 2.2% from April 2013, as will the employment and support allowance support group component and those disability-related premiums that are paid with pension credit and working-age benefits.
	In the face of the ongoing challenge to our national economy, we have faced a tough decision on working-age benefits. In exercise of his discretion in the uprating of certain benefits, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has decided that the national economic situation is such that the country simply cannot afford to be as generous as we have been in the past.
	There has been speculation about a benefit freeze. However, the Government have found sufficient money to pay a 1% increase for people of working age who claim the main rate of jobseeker’s allowance or income support, as well as for those on the main rate plus the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance and housing benefit.
	This has been a difficult choice. Where possible, and particularly for those with disabilities, we have sought to protect benefits against inflation. Indeed, we have gone further in the case of the triple guarantee for the basic state pension. Nevertheless, the fiscal position means it has simply not been possible fully to protect every benefit. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we need to
	“ensure that we have a welfare system that Britain can afford.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 879.]
	Uprating for 2014 and 2015 will be affected by the welfare uprating Bill that was announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday, and right hon. and hon. Members will be able to debate these matters further during the passage of that Bill.
	At the June 2010 emergency Budget the Government announced that from 2013, rates of local housing allowance would be calculated annually by using the lower of the 30th percentile of local rents, or the previous year’s rate uprated by reference to the consumer prices index. That will end the monthly uprating of LHA and bring the system into line with the uprating of other pensions and benefits. In preparation for that change, the Government fixed LHA rates from April 2012 so as to establish a baseline from which they could be uprated in future. Therefore, from April 2013, LHA rates will be set at the lower of the 30th percentile of local rents or the April 2012 rate increased by 2.2%.
	Uprating of LHA for 2014 and 2015 will be in line with the 1% increase for the majority of working-age benefits. LHA rates for 2014 will be set at the lower of the 30th percentile of local rents, or the April 2013 rate increased by 1%, and an equivalent approach will follow for 2015. The Government will set aside £140 million over two years to help those people in areas where rent increases are highest or there is a shortage of affordable housing. It is worth noting—I was surprised by this—that 44% of LHA rates will not increase next year because local market rents have been stable since those rates were last set, and in a further 13% of cases they have actually fallen.
	At a time when the nation’s finances remain under severe pressure, the Government will spend an extra £2.8 billion in 2013-14 to ensure that people are protected against cost of living increases. Around £2.1 billion—three quarters of the money—will be spent on state pensions, nearly half a billion pounds will be spent on disabled people and their carers, and nearly £300 million will be spent on people who are unable to work because of sickness or unemployment.
	We have protected the triple lock, taking the basic state pension to its highest level as a percentage of average earnings for two decades. We have protected our poorest pensioners with an over-indexation of the standard minimum guarantee so that they too may benefit from the triple guarantee. We have protected disabled people through increases to disability living allowance and attendance allowance, carer’s allowance and the main rate of incapacity benefit, in line with CPI, and disability premiums for those on working-age benefits.
	Even in the face of a challenging national economic situation and the need to find savings to rebalance our economy, we have managed to provide a 1% increase to help support those not in work. In this statement I have outlined the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that even in these difficult times no one is left behind, and I commend this statement to the House.

Liam Byrne: I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement, although from yesterday we had a pretty good idea what he was going to say. Today brings welcome news for Britain’s pensioners. When Labour was in office we lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty and increased pensioner incomes by 40%. Today the Minister has confirmed that pensions are set to rise, which we welcome, and we look forward to his pensions White Paper, which is now acquiring mythical status—we hope he will soon be able to prove it is a reality and not a myth.
	Although the news for pensioners is welcome, news for working people is a disaster. Buried in the small print of yesterday’s Budget is the brutal truth that it was a Budget for unemployment. We already knew that the Chancellor had throttled the recovery, that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had cut hardest those councils where jobs were fewest, and that the Work programme was worse than doing nothing, but yesterday we saw what that means for the nation’s finances.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility has revised up the claimant count by 340,000 by 2016. This Budget puts up unemployment, and the bill for that failure is enormous. The dole bill in 2015-16 will now be nearly £1 billion higher—£1.6 billion more over the next three years. The bill for failure is not going down but up, and yesterday we learned that working people will pay the price.
	This country already has more than 6 million working people in poverty. The Resolution Foundation stated yesterday that 60% of the welfare uprating bill will be paid by working people. It is a strivers’ tax. Her Majesty’s Treasury policy costings state that the 1% squeeze will save £6.7 billion. Provisional analysis this morning by the Library shows that just 23% of that will come from
	JSA, ESA and income support. The rest of the balance will come from tax credits, maternity allowance, maternity pay, sick pay and housing benefits, which are all claimed by working people. The strivers and battlers whom the Prime Minister promised to defend at his party conference will pay the price for the Government’s failure.
	I hope we will not have any nonsense from the Minister about how all that will be offset by the rise in the personal allowance. Already, £14 billion has been taken out of tax credits, and yesterday’s Budget steals another £5 billion from tax credits by 2016-17. The universal credit we have heard so much about—if it ever happens—has been hacked into before it has even started. The price will be paid by 6,000 families in the Minister’s constituency—no doubt they are delighted with him.
	In the welfare uprating Bill, what is the value of the squeeze on working people’s maternity allowance, statutory sick pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, statutory adoption pay, working tax credit and child tax credit? During Second Reading of the Child Poverty Bill, the Minister said that he had given up being an even-handed academic, because he was
	“appalled at what was happening in our country to the most vulnerable people”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 625.]
	Indeed, he attacked his hon. Friends for standing “idly by” and watching child poverty reach record levels.
	Before the autumn statement, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that 400,000 children will be plunged back into poverty by 2015 because of measures already taken. How many more children will fall into poverty as a result of this strivers’ tax? Will the Minister please justify to the House how the Chancellor can press ahead with a £3 billion tax cut for the better-off—a tax cut of £107,000 for the 8,000 people earning over £1 million—when 6,000 families in his own constituency will see their tax credits frozen or cut? This Budget has increased the claimant count, put up the cost of failure and now working people will pay the price.

Steve Webb: It is not often that Shakespeare springs to mind when I respond to these statements, but the phrase
	“full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
	springs to mind—I missed out the earlier bit of the quote about a tale told by an idiot, out of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. We get a lot of fury and sound, but when it comes to the crunch, he abstains. He described the measures as a disaster, but it was not clear whether that means he will vote against them—answer came there none. If the measures are a disaster, surely he can say he will vote against them, but of course he does not. He sounds sympathetic and angry, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a vote, he disappears and is not to be seen.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the crucial issue of employment, but he does not seem to realise that the number of people in work is at a record level and will rise every year of this Parliament. That is the record of the coalition. He asked about strivers and somehow wanted to waft away the large increase in personal tax allowances. I am afraid, however, that I will not let him waft away a large commitment to Britain’s strivers. This April, the personal tax alliance
	will rise by a record amount—£1,300. That is worth £5 a week to the hard-working families he claims to support—far more than any indexation impact.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to universal credit and used the phrase “if it happens”. He may not have noticed that yesterday we published the rates of disregard for universal credit, and on Monday my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary will publish further details. This bold welfare reform is on track, on time and under budget, and it will be delivered as we have promised.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about three specific areas. When the welfare uprating Bill is published it will be accompanied by a full impact assessment that will deal with the figures he has requested. On child poverty, the Government remain committed to our statutory obligations, and when taken as a whole, our policies will deliver real reductions in child poverty. He will have seen the chart published yesterday on the impact of universal credit, which shows overwhelmingly that those in the poorest deciles benefit most. Universal credit will help us to eat into child poverty. He did not mention the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of a multi-billion pound tax relief for investment by British business which will create jobs and reduce child poverty.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned taxes on the highest paid. I seem to remember that he was a Treasury Minister. In 13 years of the Labour Government —if I remember rightly—the top rate of income tax was never above 40%. He seems to be objecting to the fact that we have a 45% top rate of income tax. If 45% is too low, why was he satisfied with 40% for 13 years?

Graham Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have protected the basic state pension? Will he also confirm that, as a result of the triple lock, pensioners in Weaver Vale can look forward to £15,000 over the course of their retirement? Does he agree that the Conservative party is the party that makes work pay and that makes it pay to save?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that the coalition is making it pay to work. We are paying an increase in the state pension that is above inflation and above earnings growth. The figure he gives is right: someone retiring this year on a full state pension will get around £15,000 more over their retirement than they would get under the policies adopted by the previous Government.

Glenda Jackson: To paraphrase Shakespeare, the Minister doth protest too much, methinks. He knows that the majority of our children who live in poverty do so in low-paid, working, not shirking, families. Those families are already experiencing serious difficulties in adequately feeding, clothing and, in some instances, even housing their children. In the light of the freeze on benefits, how many more families and children does he expect to be pushed into that—surely, in the 21st century—totally unacceptable situation?

Steve Webb: I hesitate to trade Shakespearian quotes with the hon. Lady, but to be clear, benefits are not being frozen, they are being increased. She is right on child poverty. The Government have not just stumbled across working poverty, because it was widespread under
	the previous Government, but it will be substantially improved by universal credit, which will make work pay in a way that it did not under the previous Government.

Nigel Mills: Will the Minister confirm that average pay has increased by only 10% and out-of-work benefits have increased by 20% in the past five years, and therefore that holding down the rate of increase will help to make the situation fairer for those who go out to work to pay for those benefits?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that we have substantially increased out-of-work benefits. He will recall the 5.2% increase last year in line with inflation. We judged that that was the right thing to do when inflation was running very high. This year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had regard to inflation and the wider economic situation, which have informed his judgments.

Dennis Skinner: BBC television this morning went to a clothing factory in Derbyshire.

Nigel Mills: In Alfreton.

Dennis Skinner: Yes, in Alfreton. The BBC interviewed people—strivers—who work for a living at the factory about the effect of the Budget. Surprisingly, all three of those interviewed understood that the cut would affect them and not just people out of work. What answer has the Minister got for those people about how the Budget was presented? The Government tried to pull the wool over their eyes, but they were smart enough to spot that they would be the casualties.

Steve Webb: Those who travel to work using their cars will have been delighted by the cancellation of the 3p increase in petrol tax. By the time the rates are reviewed next autumn, petrol duties will have been frozen for two and a half years, and petrol prices will be lower by 10p a litre. The hon. Gentleman may wave his hands, but that is what matters to people who work. On the low paid, is he aware that those on the minimum wage have had their tax bill halved as a result of the increases to personal tax allowances? That is welcomed by strivers.

Greg Mulholland: I commend my hon. Friend and his colleagues for how they have conducted making this difficult decision. Will he assure the House that people who are vulnerable, including disabled people, those who are sick and carers, will continue to get the same benefits?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is right. As well as the undertakings we gave in our election manifestos on the state pension, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor focused specifically on the most vulnerable. DLA will go up in line with inflation, as will attendance allowance, carers allowance and the support component of ESA. We recognise that money is tight—I recall that someone once said that all the money had gone—but we want to protect the most vulnerable.

Sheila Gilmore: It might be a bit more sensible if we had an opportunity to vote on all parts of the package. We could then include some of the things that the Minister’s Liberal Democrat colleagues did not manage to include—I am thinking, for example, of higher rates of tax on property. For working people, and particularly those who are working part time and are dependent on housing benefit, the changes to housing benefit uprating are yet another cut in their standard of living. They lost out in the last round of uprating because of the differential tax credits, which were not uprated in line with inflation. The latest changes are another hit on working families.

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady’s constituents will want to look closely at how she votes. We hear the sound and fury, but then there is abstention. The Labour party has no alternative. There is a shortfall, and the Government have found a measured and reasonable way to fill it. I have heard nothing from Labour Members about an alternative strategy. Until we hear that, we will not take them seriously.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister confirm that next year’s 2.5% increase in the state pension exceeds both the growth in average earnings and the growth in prices? That stands in stark contrast to the miserly and insulting 75p annual increase given by the previous Labour Government to pensioners in 2000.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. Some have suggested that £2.70 is not that great a figure, but when we compare it with the figure he quotes, we can see that it is an improvement. It is higher than inflation and higher than average earnings. As I have said, it takes the pension’s real value relative to what people in work get to its highest level for 20 years. The coalition can be proud of that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Many people in my constituency come to see me absolutely distraught at the prospect of losing their private rented flat because of the imposition of a housing benefit cut. Social cleansing is going on in all of central London because of the benefit cap. That is a disgraceful situation. It destroys communities and damages schools—need I go on? The Minister is proposing a £140 million transitional payment. That is not enough, and transition is not enough. We need rent controls in the private sector. If there is to be a benefit cap, it needs to reflect the reality of the costs of life in inner-city Britain.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify where the £140 million that we have identified will be spent. The additional help will go to areas where there are local housing market pressures—areas where rents have risen rapidly or where there is a shortage of affordable housing. It is targeted support for local areas in addition to the discretionary housing money we have made available to local authorities so that the hardest cases can be properly protected.

Tony Baldry: As co-chair of the all-party group on carers, I welcome the fact that carer’s allowance, and other benefits relating to sickness, such as DLA and attendance allowance, will be uprated in
	line with CPI. Will my hon. Friend explain what will happen to the value of those benefits under the welfare uprating Bill? Will he guarantee and give the House an undertaking that benefits such as carer’s allowance will continue to be uprated in future years along the lines of CPI increases?

Steve Webb: The focus of the uprating Bill will be on those benefits over which the Secretary of State has discretionary powers, particularly working-age benefits, JSA and ESA. We will also look at tax credits and child benefit. It is our policy to ensure that carer’s allowance is protected against inflation.

Michael Weir: Does the Minister accept that many of those on working-age benefits spend much of their money on food and, in particular, energy, for which the rate of inflation is much higher than CPI? A 1% increase is not the difference between CPI and 1% for these people but is in fact a much greater cut in their living standards.

Steve Webb: This issue is raised every year, and every year it is argued that the rate of inflation for people on benefits is always above the prevailing rate of inflation, but in the long term there is no reason to think that that would be the case. We have made provision for the most vulnerable groups to be protected—those receiving disability benefits and pensioners—but unless the hon. Gentleman can suggest serious ways of saving money elsewhere in the Budget, for which Scottish National party has not been famous, I am not sure that his opposition to our plans is credible.

Peter Bone: I remember the outrage in my constituency a few years ago when pensioners discovered that the increase in their pension did not cover even the increase in council tax. May I commend the Government for increasing the state pension by 2.5%? It is clear that this Government care about pensioners and that the previous Government did not.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning council tax. Many pensioners, particularly those who are just clear of the means-tested benefit system, whom I often think of as the not rich, not poor group, felt those increases in council tax keenly. They will benefit substantially from our repeated freezing of council tax, which those on a fixed income in retirement value greatly.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister spoke about the number of people in employment, but does he not accept that the number includes at least 3 million people who are now working part time—not because they want to work part time, but because they cannot work full time? Is that not precisely the group who will be particularly badly hit by his measures?

Steve Webb: There is a danger that the Opposition will denigrate part-time work, which is a choice for many. There are clearly some who want to move up from part-time work to full-time work, and our reforms of the in-work benefits system, through universal credit, will assist them in that process.

Andrew Percy: I welcome the extra support for pensioners. The Minister mentioned council tax. Does he share my shock and surprise that while Conservative councillors in my constituency have fought to keep council tax down by cutting councillors’ salaries and senior management, the few remaining and ever-decreasing Labour councillors insist on continuing to oppose those changes and fight for bigger increases in council tax year on year?

Steve Webb: All councillors have to have regard to the impact of council tax increases on those, such as pensioners, on a fixed income. It is incumbent on local government as much as it is on central Government to ensure that any unnecessary costs are stripped out so that council tax rises can be kept to a minimum.

Jonathan Ashworth: Will the Minister confirm, despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric yesterday about those who go to work and those who stay in bed, that of those affected by the 1% uprating, 60% are in working households? The increase in personal allowance will be outweighed by the losses to their tax credits and benefits. Is that correct? Yes or no.

Steve Webb: No, it is not correct. The personal tax allowance will rise by just more than £1,300 in April. At a standard rate of 20%, that is approximately £260 a year, or £5 a week, which is more than the impact for the vast majority of households. The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of taking measures in isolation. It is crucial to look at our measures as a whole, including tax allowance rises and cuts in petrol duty compared with previous plans, which benefit the working households he is most concerned about.

Diana Johnson: I wonder what the Government have got against women. Does the Minister agree with the House of Commons Library figures that show that women will bear the brunt of these changes—80% of those affected will be women?

Steve Webb: I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s description. A wide range of the policies we have introduced—for example, in my area on state pension reform—are focused particularly on assisting women. Many beneficiaries of universal credit will be in lower-paid work, which includes many women. She referred to very low-paid women, who, for example, receive statutory maternity pay. They will almost all benefit from the personal tax allowance increase.

Chris Williamson: The Prime Minister used to talk about broken Britain, but is not the truth that this Government are breaking and dividing our country? How can the Minister justify the £3 billion tax give-away to millionaires while thousands of people in his constituency will lose out as a result of these announcements?

Steve Webb: We inherited a situation in which approximately £80 billion a year of spending reductions and tax increases were needed simply to balance the books. I have not heard anything this morning from the Opposition—not a single word—on where, now there is no money left, that should come from. If the hon.
	Gentleman voted against our proposals he would have some credibility, but of course when the crunch comes he will not—he will sit on the fence. He wants his constituents to think he cares, but when it comes to casting his vote in this place he will be somewhere else.

William Bain: The Treasury’s own analysis shows that the measures announced yesterday and today are regressive towards people in the seven lowest income deciles. Given that three-quarters of the cuts in tax credits will affect people in work and that the Government have made no steps to deal with the looming work disincentives that will be faced by second earners in couple households with children, are the Government not making a mockery of their pledge to make work pay for everyone?

Steve Webb: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the distribution impact that was published yesterday, he will realise that he has mysteriously forgotten about the large amounts of additional tax that will be paid by the top decile through the restriction of pension tax relief, who will, by far, lose out the most, and that seems a very progressive thing to do.

Points of Order

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions we had the ludicrous spectacle of the farming Minister refusing to answer my question about the devastating impact on the cider industry of the Government’s proposal to have a minimum alcohol price because he has cider farms in his constituency. He was perfectly happy to answer numerous questions on dairy farming, beef farming and every other type of farming, which he also has in his constituency. Will you please seek clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this ludicrous ruling? Will Education Ministers not be allowed to answer questions because they have schools in their constituency? It is totally absurd.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not for the Chair to decide who will answer a question from the Front Bench; it is for the Government. I am sure that people will have noticed the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and it will be on the record.

Lilian Greenwood: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, this morning the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to this House in which he claimed that civil servants, rather than Ministers, were responsible for the catastrophic failures in the west coast main line franchising process. After the Secretary of State sat down, we heard from the media that officials suspended during the investigation had been reinstated—a point he failed to mention. May I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is it your expectation that Ministers, when making a statement to this House, provide the full facts known to them?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not for the Chair to write statements. The hon. Lady has rightly put her point on the record. I am sure she will not leave it at that and take the avenues available to her to ensure that it is raised in other ways. It is certainly on the record.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those here earlier will have heard the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) try to make his point of order, expressing his apparent surprise that my hon. Friend the Minister was not going to answer questions about alcohol and minimum pricing. As the right hon. Member for Exeter is quoted in his local paper as knowing that in advance, may we ask why he was so surprised and why he had to raise it again as a separate point of order?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have dealt with that point of order already.

Backbench Business

Ugandan Asians

Shailesh Vara: I beg to move,
	That this House commemorates the 40th anniversary of the arrival in Britain of Asians expelled from Uganda, notes their contribution to Britain and welcomes their integration into the fabric of the nation.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee warmly for allowing me to have this debate. It was originally due to take place last Thursday, but was postponed because of the need for the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Leveson inquiry.
	On 4 August 1972, the Sandhurst-educated President of Uganda, General Idi Amin, informed troops he was addressing in Karamoja in east Uganda that he had had a dream in which God had appeared to him and told him that he had to deal very quickly with the problem of the Ugandan Asians. This referred specifically to some 57,000 Ugandan Asians who held British passports. The problem, if it can be called a problem, was that they numbered 1% of the population but controlled approximately 90% of the country’s economy.
	The response from Idi Amin was brutal and swift. He said that they had 90 days in which to leave the country, and during those 90 days they had to carry red identity cards at all times. He made it absolutely clear that if any of them remained in the country after the stipulated 90 days, they would be rounded up and thrown into concentration camps. Churchill described Uganda as the pearl of Africa, yet, with such a pronouncement, a climate of fear and desperation fell upon the Ugandan Asians. The sense of desperation was eloquently summed up by the late Manubhai Madhvani in his autobiography, “Tide of Fortune”, in which he described the atmosphere at the time and his own imprisonment in a military prison from which few people returned.
	As for the response in Britain, there was clearly a fair amount of hostility, both in Parliament and the country at large. Some of it was based on basic prejudice, but there was also genuine concern in areas with high unemployment, in areas with long waiting lists for social housing and in areas with large immigrant populations already settled, such as Leicester. Leicester city council certainly took no chances, because it took out adverts in Uganda telling people not to come here, especially to Leicester, because they were not welcome.
	Credit must be given to the Government of the time, led by Edward Heath, who took a courageous decision.

Jonathan Ashworth: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He mentioned Leicester, so I thought I ought to spring to my feet. It should be remembered that not all councillors on Leicester city council in the ’70s agreed with the council’s decision. In fact, the current Mayor of Leicester, Sir Peter Soulsby, as a young councillor, voted against it. It should be said that Leicester today is a much stronger, more confident and more vibrant city because of the contribution of the Ugandan Asians.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right that not everyone was hostile. Indeed, Sir Peter Soulsby—until recently a colleague of ours—said that Leicester was a stronger place because of the Ugandan Asians.
	Edward Heath rightly took the decision that both morally and legally Britain had an obligation to take in the refugees. The position was best summed up in a statement in Parliament on 7 August 1972, when Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, said:
	“We accept a special obligation for these people who are British passport holders”.—[Official Report, 7 August 1972; Vol. 842, c. 1261.]
	There was, of course, a fair amount of frantic international diplomacy on Britain’s part, and we managed to persuade 29 other countries to take some of the people concerned. Those countries included the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, some Scandinavian countries and some Latin American countries.

Peter Bottomley: I hope this is not the most important point I will make, but will my hon. Friend remember the Falklands, which asked for a couple of doctors and then a plumber?

Shailesh Vara: As always, my hon. Friend makes an apt intervention that enlightens the debate.
	As a consequence of so many countries agreeing to take refugees, Britain ended up with 28,000 people—28,000 British passport holders who came here frightened, homeless, penniless and with only the clothes on their backs. They arrived at Stansted airport, and some at Heathrow airport, and were met by demonstrators holding placards saying, “Go home! You’re not welcome here.” The fact that they were British passport holders and had no home to go to was by the bye as far as the demonstrators were concerned.
	Britain hastily set up the Uganda resettlement board, whose job was to give immediate assistance to the refugees, find them homes and jobs and, importantly, ensure they were resettled in the community at large. To start off with, they settled in 16 resettlement centres scattered throughout the country—former military bases that were mostly bleak and isolated. But this was a time when Britain was at its best. Having accepted responsibility for these refugees, voluntary groups, church groups, charity groups and ordinary citizens came out to help them. They showed their warmth, their compassion and their care for their fellow human beings. Many of the indigenous population did not have much themselves, but what little they had they were happy to share with the newcomers, giving them food and shelter.
	Councils throughout the country also responded. In south Wales, Pontardawe rural council offered three council homes, Aylesbury rural district council offered six and Peterborough city council—I represent part of Peterborough—helped too: the then leader of the council, Councillor Charles Swift, went to Tonfanau resettlement centre in Wales with local employers and offered 50 council houses, provided the people agreed to take on the jobs offered by those with him. For his efforts, Councillor Swift received hate mail and death threats, and for a while required a police escort to take him to work as a railway driver.
	This was also a time when individuals opened their doors. Some had only one room spare in their house and took in one individual, but others had more space and took in whole families. This was the British character at its best—but there was a little humour as well. There was the incident of two refugees in a resettlement centre being quite miserable, but suddenly finding that in Britain the shops closed at 5 o’clock and during the weekends. They smiled, and one said to the other, “We’re going to be rich.”
	Very soon the refugees moved from the resettlement centres into the mainstream community. Rather than seeing the expulsion as life-destroying, they looked at it as a setback. They picked themselves up and started all over again. They took whatever jobs were available, worked long hours, made a success of their jobs and their lives and built a better future for their families; and now, many of those people employ hundreds and thousands of our fellow citizens. One such example is Mr Shabbir Damani in Peterborough, who came here penniless but now has nine pharmacies employing 100 full-time staff and another 100 or so on an ad hoc basis. There are many other such examples.
	There were successes not only in business but in the professions, the military, the police, politics, media and entertainment, charities, sport and so on. There is also the case of Dr Mumtaz Kassam, who was expelled at the age of 16 and went to a resettlement centre in Leamington Spa, but ended up being, until recently, deputy high commissioner for Uganda serving in Britain—serving the country that had once expelled her as a teenager. The precise contribution made by the Ugandan Asians is difficult to quantify in economic terms, but it is generally felt that the south Asian community—or those with origins there but who are now settled in Britain—number 2.5% of the population, but are responsible for 10% of our national output.

Simon Hughes: I was a student when Edward Heath and the Government of the day bravely decided to respond positively. If ever there was an example of how a policy can help people in their hour of need and understand that foreigners—although there was a strong British link—can be an asset not a disadvantage, this is it. We would do well to continue to learn that lesson, as we address the inevitable plight of other people who might look to us for help when, through no fault of their own, their Governments turn on them as minorities and oppress them, as the Amin Government did to the Ugandan Asians.

Shailesh Vara: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Ugandan Asian community is a case study of a minority group who were persecuted, came here but did not seek to rely on the state, instead picking themselves up and becoming self-reliant.
	Many, many success stories are recorded in the media, but we must not forget that not all those 28,000 people became millionaires: many simply got on with their everyday lives, in whatever trade or job they had, and became model citizens in their own way, doing their bit for the greater good of the country as a whole. It is important to record that. There can be no doubt that
	the community as a whole has punched above its weight in Britain—it has done more than its fair share for mainstream Britain.
	I am reminded of the Parsee community, who were persecuted in Persia—now Iran—more than 1,000 years ago: because of their faith, Zoroastrianism, they had to leave Persia. They left in their ships and went to the shores of the state of Gujarat in India. The leader of the Parsees sent an emissary to the Maharajah of the state of Gujarat to say, “We have been persecuted and we ask that you give us refuge in your country.” The Maharajah sent the emissary back, saying, “I’m sorry, I cannot take you and your people. My own land is too populated, and, besides, you have a different religion and culture. But I will give you this shipload of provisions: food, water, milk, honey—anything you need to take with you to another place where you might find a home.” The leader of the Parsees took a cup of milk from the provisions that were sent and some sugar. He put the teaspoon of sugar in the milk, stirred it around, sent for the emissary and said, “Tell the Maharajah of the state: ‘In the same way as the sugar has blended and integrated with the milk, so too, if you give my people refuge in your country, will we integrate.’”
	The Parsees were allowed to stay in the state of Gujarat, and they stuck to their word. They became model citizens and are leaders in various aspects of Indian life—the military, academia, business, entertainment, and so on. One such individual is Ratan Tata, of the Tata group. Not only does he employ thousands of people in India, but the Tata group employs more than 50,000 people in Britain, including more than 700 in my constituency, one of the group’s companies being Diligenta Ltd. The position was summed up eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when I asked him a question recently in Prime Minister’s questions. Referring to the Ugandan Asians, he said that they had made a
	“fantastic contribution to our national life.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 224.]
	The Ugandan Asians who have settled here in the past 40 years have truly settled and truly integrated, becoming part of the fabric of our nation.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am proud to have supported the request for this debate in a meeting of the Backbench Business Committee. It is an important debate, but I slightly regret its title on the Order Paper, which should refer to the “Anniversary of the expulsion of British nationals of Asian origin from Uganda”, as it was only because this group of people shared a passport with other British citizens who were born in Britain that they were accepted here when they sought entry to the UK after expulsion from Uganda.
	Permission to enter was not given easily. I have talked to some of those who were desperately queuing outside the British high commission, panicking and in fear of Amin’s henchmen. They reminded me that it was not until Canada decided to admit 6,000 refugees and Amin started rounding up white Britons that Edward Heath agreed to act. Indeed, Himat Lakhani, whose family were expelled and who himself helped to welcome people here, tells me that the Canadians handed out water and provided them with chairs to sit on. He suggested that
	they managed to encourage the cream of those who fled Uganda to go to Canada as a result of that positive treatment.
	A few years before, in a similar process of Africanisation, British people of Asian descent were being squeezed out of Kenya. That led to one of the most shameful acts of a Labour Government, agreed to by this House: the hasty passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which created a racial divide in UK citizenship between those who had an ancestor born in Britain and other family members who were citizens of the UK and colonies. My predecessor as MP for Slough opposed that Act. I praise her and other rebels who joined her in opposing it, one of whom is still a Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I would like to put on record my praise for him.
	Following the 1968 Act, the Government announced the creation of the special quota voucher scheme to admit a small number of British national heads of household who were under pressure to leave Kenya, and later Uganda. When the Uganda expulsion took place, the scheme was insufficient, but it continued for years and led the European Commission of Human Rights to find the UK guilty of “inhuman and degrading treatment”. The scheme discriminated against women who were not heads of households but who held UK and colonies citizenship. The waiting time for the issue of quota vouchers in India reached eight years in the mid-1980s—I remember that because I was trying to help people in the queue. Of course, Amin’s action meant that the quota voucher system could not cope. Praise is due to Ted Heath for ignoring those such as Enoch Powell and the dockers who argued that we did not have a responsibility to those people. He recognised that we did.
	The refugees came here facing cold weather, dismal conditions in the ex-military camps to which they were sent and a nation determined to keep them out of places where they knew people and had relatives, as we have heard. Leicester council even took out newspaper advertisements trying to keep them away. It is interesting to speak to people who were part of that. They tell of the fear they felt in Uganda and of how they arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs, which were inadequate for British weather. They were fed ham sandwiches in those Royal Air Force camps, even if they were Muslims. They had to share beds. It was often not the warm welcome that we sometimes like to remind ourselves of, although there were individual families who provided the warmest of welcomes.
	Himat, along with Mary Dines, formed the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—for which I later had the privilege of working—and set up a co-ordinating committee to support those who wanted to go to the “red areas” that the Government were trying to keep them out of. He became a social worker in Southwark. In that role he dealt with 30 families who were the last to leave the camps—those with a disabled member or some other substantial disadvantage. He told me last night that nearly every one of those 30 families, welcomed into a council house, now owns their own home; so this is a story of success, but also one with some lessons for us in Britain.
	The first thing we should do is celebrate those such as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), whose ancestry is from the Uganda Asian community, together with other hon. Members, including
	the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and Shriti Vadera—the right hon. Baroness Vadera in the other place, who was formerly a Minister. Those people have all contributed enormously to our civic, economic and general life in Britain.
	While celebrating those achievements, however, we should not forget that the history of our legislation and our rules has not always been one to be celebrated. Just months after we had accepted the Ugandan Asians, in February 1973, this House debated new immigration rules that further downgraded the citizenship of that community. British citizens were given a lower level of priority than Commonwealth citizens who had a grandparental link to the United Kingdom. The creation of that racial divide has been a slur on our immigration policy for years.
	The history of this process contains lessons for us as legislators and for Ministers. I was in the House in March 2002 when, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), a Home Office Minister announced, without any consultation whatever, the abolition of the special quota voucher scheme, saying that it had become irrelevant and was no longer necessary. That sent out an important signal. The people concerned held British overseas citizenship passports, and we continued to have an obligation to them.
	It is no accident that one of the first actions that Hitler took against the Jews was to remove their citizenship. Citizenship is key to creating a person’s identity. By excluding people, a state can entrench social exclusion. I know that that Labour Minister was acting innocently on the basis of bogus briefing by civil servants, but we as Members of Parliament need to stand against that kind of injustice. I was glad that, because I knew the history and had been involved in campaigning for so long, I was able to brief the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and, within a month, ask him a question to which he responded that he agreed in principle to look again at the matter. By July of that year, the next Minister of State at the Home Office was able to announce that:
	“British Overseas Citizens who currently do not hold, and have never given up another nationality will be given an entitlement to register as British citizens.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 371, c. 525W.]
	The Home Secretary described the people concerned as having
	“a deep commitment to this country and a heritage linked with it.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 354.]
	He was quite right.
	We are today recognising the fantastic contribution that these Britons—and let us call them that—have made to the country of their citizenship. The fact that they have done so well is largely due to their commitment to education. I represent a racially diverse town, and I know that all sorts of migrants bring energy, courage and a commitment to learning. Anyone who starts a new life and builds up their family thousands of miles away from the place where they were born and brought up has to have the qualities of courage and imagination. One of the reasons why the United Kingdom is a vibrant and dynamic economic and cultural leader, as well as an exciting place to live, is the contribution of those and other migrant communities.
	We also need to use this debate as an opportunity to remind Ministers to treat advice with scepticism. The same civil servants who had told that Home Office Minister that the special quota voucher scheme was irrelevant and no longer necessary were, within a month or two, briefing the Home Secretary that if the change that I was proposing were to be adopted, hundreds of thousands of people would pour into Britain. They did not do so. Both those bits of advice were, frankly, spurious.
	There is another lesson for us. The moral panic that led to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and to places such as Leicester saying “We’re full up; stay away” is very similar to some of the things that we hear today about asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants. We need to show the courage that was shown by Sir Peter Soulsby, Joan Lestor and others. We need to say, “We are not going to go down that road. We are not going to be moved by the likes of the Daily Mail to say that this is a problem to be opposed.” We must stand up for what is right, and for matters of principle. We must resist the siren calls of hatred. We must tell people that Britain is a successful country because it is a tolerant country and because we have so many different races and traditions that are able to contribute so well to our success and our future.

Bob Blackman: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on securing the debate, which celebrates all that is good about Britain.
	I grew up in Wembley, and I well remember being at school in the autumn of 1972 when some very young, bewildered and bedraggled individuals suddenly arrived. They did not talk about what had happened to them. They were dressed in second-hand clothes. They spoke brilliant English. Indeed, their English was far better than that of most of the people already at the school. They had clearly had a great education when they arrived, but they did not say much about their experiences. However, as the autumn turned into winter, they found themselves in rather a different environment from the one they had known before.
	Those people changed our neighbourhood. We had always had a multi-racial community in Wembley, but it had consisted mostly of what we would now call white UK citizens and West Indians. To that melting pot was added a new group of people. They brought with them wonderful exotic food that none of us had ever experienced before. We became friends with them, but when we visited their houses, we found that they were very different from ours. Every room was used as a bedroom: the kitchen, the dining room, even the bathroom. They lived in a very different environment from that of the rest of us who lived in the area.
	It was difficult for many of those families to combat the prejudice that they encountered on a daily basis. We should remember the hatred that was shown towards those people who had arrived in this country, through no fault of their own, wanting a much better life. When I think back to conversations that I had with people
	who are now family friends, I realise what they went through. They did not talk about it at the time. They also did not talk about their background in Uganda, which we should remember was a British colony between 1894 and 1962, when it was given its independence by a Conservative Government. It was then set up and run as a modern, democratic country. The people we now call Ugandan Asians controlled 90% of the business in Uganda at the time. They were driving the economy of the country forward and making commerce a reality for a whole spectrum of people.
	Then, sadly, Idi Amin came to power. We should remember what kind of person he was. He called those people who were bringing prosperity to Uganda “bloodsuckers”. He labelled them “dukawallahs”, casting a deliberate slur on people who were of a slightly different ethnic origin. He encouraged the troops to engage in theft and physical assault on the people who were running the country’s commerce. He encouraged them to use sexual violence, particularly against women, with impunity, and the people who did this were never punished. He then pronounced, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned, that he was going to expel every single Asian who held a British passport.
	After the expulsion, all those businesses were handed over to Idi Amin’s supporters. It is interesting to note that the economy went to rack and ruin as a result of his deliberate decision to force the people who were generating the economy out of that country. Of the people expelled, Britain took around 27,200 citizens arriving in this country; 6,000 went to Canada; only 4,500 ended up in India; and 2,500 went to Kenya to continue their lives in east Africa. Some 5,655 firms in Uganda, along with ranches, farms and agricultural estates, were all reallocated—taken from the people who owned them and ran them for the benefit of the local economy. They were reallocated on an ad hoc basis to the people who had forced them out. Cars, homes, household goods, clothes and worldly possessions were all just passed over.
	Let us imagine the scenario of what happened to those poor people, and then what happened here. We have already heard that in this very Chamber people said, “We don’t want them here.” Councils up and down the country said “We don’t want them here.” The British dockers and the trade unions tried to stop people who were British citizens from coming here. If the people who did that are still alive, they should apologise for their hatred towards those British people.
	It would have been natural for many of the people arriving to feel sorry for themselves and to think, “Our life has ended; what are we in now?” Their reaction, however, was not to rely on the state. They needed some help, of course, but they did not rely on the state. They had existed in Uganda by their own commerce and their own activities, so they set about starting their own businesses in corner shops, seeing the opportunities that Britain offered. They set about employing people, getting loans from the banks where they could, and setting up new industries—and they thrived. After all, these people who arrived some 40 years ago have at their heart the very British view of wanting to work for a living and not rely on the state. They believed in the extended
	family looking after one another, and looking after the elderly and the young ones—encapsulating everything that is good about Britain.
	Forty years on, we are now seeing the third or possibly fourth generation of individuals who came to this country. They are leaders in business and commerce, they are great employers, and they generate valuable resources for this country. They have brought other things, too. We have in this country some of the greatest temples outside India, and they have been built by the people who were expelled from Uganda and other parts of east Africa. I am proud to be associated with many of those temples, and encourage people to celebrate their religion. Of course, these are often the people who most believe in law and order. There are fewer Hindus in our prisons than people of any other religion. They believe in law and order, they obey this country’s rules and they swear allegiance to the Queen and everything we hold dear.
	As for education, these families all wanted better for their children, and it is unusual to find such a family that does not have within its ranks a doctor, dentist, lawyer, accountant or other professional. I well remember that what they brought to my school and my area was their cultural roots and their celebrations of their culture. They still celebrate those things today—and quite rightly, too. They also assisted our sporting legacy. Indeed, at my school, our hockey team dramatically improved when they arrived, as did the cricket team. It is true that we can still celebrate that contribution today.
	In my constituency today, 40% of the residents have a heritage stemming from Gujarat, from east Africa or from Uganda in particular. In this melting pot of an area in Harrow, people live in peace and harmony. They celebrate their religion; they celebrate their culture; they celebrate their background. The people who came here have generated business, commerce and wealth for this country and for their families, and they have established a heritage here, which we celebrate. Their belief in family values and law and order is an example to us all. I think we can truly say that Uganda’s loss was Britain’s gain.

Eilidh Whiteford: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on securing today’s debate. I apologise to him and other Members as I shall shortly have to leave the Chamber to attend the fisheries debate in Westminster Hall. I am pleased that, after last week’s postponement, we have found time to mark the 40th anniversary in today’s debate. We should not forget what happened in Uganda in the early 1970s, especially in a world where protection of human rights remains such a pressing challenge.
	Today’s debate provides me with an opportunity to pay tribute to a constituent and friend of mine, Vinay Ruparelia, who came to Scotland as a young man, having been expelled from Uganda along with thousands of other Ugandan Asians. Just a few weeks ago, Vinay retired from a successful pharmacy business that he had run with his wife Teresa in Banff and Portsoy for the last 34 years. The public service he has provided and the jobs he has created in the local community over the years are, in themselves, no small achievement.
	It is fair to say that running the business has sometimes seemed like a sideline compared to Vinay’s efforts on behalf of the community of which he became a part. Vinay is a very well kent face around the north-east of Scotland because of his long-standing involvement in a number of local and international charities. As a former president of the Banff rotary club, which celebrated its 60th anniversary this year, Vinay has played an important role in a range of educational and health initiatives at home and overseas. He is currently a director of Books Abroad, a local charity that sends quality second-hand books to schools overseas. Having visited schools in parts of Africa where there is only one textbook for 200 children, I know the difference that that can make to the quality of education and the quality of life for children in developing countries.
	Similarly, when earthquakes and other humanitarian disasters strike anywhere in the world, Vinay’s shop has always been a place where donations could be made for global relief efforts. On more than one occasion, I have found him making up kits of essential supplies from his own stockroom.
	Vinay has also given up his time very generously to causes much closer to home, and served as chair of the board of Turning Point Scotland, which is a national charity that supports some of the people in our society with the most complex needs, notably those with significant learning disabilities and those recovering from drug and alcohol addictions. Vinay brought the same energy, compassion and entrepreneurial flair to Turning Point that he brought to his business activities. He also exhibited another characteristic talent at getting other people involved. In fact, prior to my election here, he persuaded me to get involved on Turning Point’s board.
	When we read about asylum seekers and refugees in the press, we often get the impression that the generosity is one way, and that it is all ours, but exceptional citizens such as Vinay and so many others—some of whom we have heard about this afternoon—have given far more to our society than they have ever received from it. Vinay was the first person I ever knew who had been a refugee. Undoubtedly, as a youngster, learning the story of how he had ended up in north-east Scotland and how thousands of people like him were forced to leave their homes and livelihoods, coloured my understanding of why we have a duty to protect those who seek asylum and why the international conventions that protect human rights are so important.
	Above all, today’s debate is a salutary reminder of the sorts of the circumstances that give rise to people becoming refugees and asylum seekers, and it brings home to me why it is so important that we continue to honour our obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers under international law. Ugandan Asians faced unimaginable circumstances with great resilience and courage, so it is fitting that we have had an opportunity to pay tribute to them today.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is getting tight, and I do not want to restrict it further. I am introducing a 10-minute speaking limit, but if Members could shave a little bit off that, the Chair would really appreciate it.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall make just a few short comments.
	First, let me thank our hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) for his timely and persistent attempts to secure the debate. He naturally wanted to ensure that it took take place, but the rest of us are happy to associate ourselves with his wish.
	Although she has left the Chamber, I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants for a long time, and did a very reputable and important job in that organisation. Her continuing commitment to the cause of immigrants to this country, and to others who have not come here but may wish to do so—and have a claim to do so—deserves to be put on record. She paid tribute to others, and I think that she deserves a tribute herself.
	The backdrop to today’s debate is the legislation of the 1960s, which was not our country’s most glorious hour, and the mercifully much better response to that terrible “90 days” threat to an entire community, the entrepreneurial heartbeat of Uganda, in 1972. Thank God we responded as we did and other countries in the Commonwealth and elsewhere responded as they did, and thank God there were enlightened local authorities in Britain which, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, were positive in their response.
	It was not easy for the people who came here in 1972. The weather, as I recall, was grim, and, as we have been reminded, conditions were often grim as well. Those people had a very difficult start. Not only did they come with, literally, the clothes that they could take from their homes and the suitcases that they could pack—often with no finances, and with young children in tow—but they then went into pretty grim accommodation, which we provided in various parts of the country at short notice. The fact that their conditions were made much better was due solely to the wonderful volunteering spirit of members of the community who offered their help, as well as the work of those for whom it was a statutory duty.

Peter Bottomley: On 15 August 2005 an article was published by Martin Wainwright, describing how our former colleague Richard Wainwright, who was Member of Parliament for Colne Valley, took in one of these families. That description gives life to what Members are saying today.

Simon Hughes: I knew that, and, as my hon. Friend would expect, I know Martin Wainwright well: he is Richard Wainwright’s son. Many others did the same.
	My constituency has a proud association with Uganda, because King Freddie of Buganda settled there and made it his home, thanks to the generosity of, in particular, the Carr-Gomm family. It was Richard Carr-Gomm, a former Liberal MP for Rotherhithe, who set up the Carr-Gomm Society and the Abbeyfield Society. In what was, in those days, a very white Bermondsey, hospitality and recognition were given to King Freddie and his family, and that spirit has continued through the ages. What happened then changed the cultural
	mood of a community, transforming white docklands London into the wonderfully multicultural community that we have now.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on raising this important issue.
	I was one of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and worked in his constituency, and, as he may well know, I was an immigrant myself. Many immigrants come to this country, and it should be proud of attracting people who will contribute to society, whether they are refugees or not.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend was the chair of the local Conservative party, if I am not mistaken. Little did I imagine in those days, when Tory candidates stood against me and got 2%, 3%, 4% or 5% of the vote, that I would end up in a coalition Government with him. “Never rule anything out” should be a political adage for us always to follow.
	I entirely associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said. I represent very few east African Asian constituents, for no reason other than the fact that they have not settled principally in Southwark, although a significant number run shops and businesses. However, in London as a whole and more widely, the contribution made to, in particular, education, the professions and business in Britain by not just Ugandan Asians but east African Asians in general has been phenomenal. We would not be the successful country that we are now, at home and abroad, were it not for that contribution.
	Let me give a microcosmic example. When I was first elected, I observed that the undergraduates entering the medical and dental schools at Guy’s hospital were predominantly white men whose dads and mums, mainly dads, had been doctors before them. The undergraduates who are starting courses this year at Guy’s and Tommy’s medical and dental school, which is part of King’s college, are predominantly women, and a significant number have Asian backgrounds. Their families are east African Asians, or people from elsewhere in Asia, whose professional parents may have been driven out of countries such as Uganda, or may have left in adverse circumstances. It is a phenomenal transformation.
	We have had other glorious days. For instance, we eventually behaved better than we might have towards the Hong Kong Chinese who were threatened at the end of Britain’s time in charge of Hong Kong. However, the less glorious days are not over yet. There are still some legacy groups whom we must try to help and support. My noble Friend Lord Avebury and I have been trying to assist a small group of Malay Chinese who have British overseas citizens’ passports but are still in limbo. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Home Office Ministers are reminded that their future has not been sorted out between our Government and the Government of Malaysia. I do not blame our Government, but the situation must be resolved, because that group of people are completely stuck. We have a particular responsibility for those who come from other Commonwealth realms and from British overseas territories.
	The hon. Member for Slough and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire issued a plea to the House, urging us to remember that we in this
	country have an obligation to stand up for people who come here seeking asylum honestly and properly. We are a rich country: we are one of the richest countries in the world, even during the current period of economic difficulty. We are also one of the most diverse, multicultural and multifaith countries in the world. We co-wrote documents such as the European convention on human rights and the United Nations declaration of civil and political rights. If we cannot, in their moment of need, be here for people who are fleeing from persecution—either as individuals or as a group—because of their colour, faith, background, sexuality or gender, we cannot expect others to do the same in the world as a whole.
	We must never allow the unintelligent and prejudiced media to confuse asylum seekers with immigrants in general. Those are separate issues, and subjects for separate debates. Of course we need an immigration policy, and of course we need to control the number of people who come here. We cannot have an “open border” policy. However, we must also have a sane, civilised and respectable policy in relation to asylum seekers. We must honour our obligations. We must try to ensure that the rest of the world knows that we will not close the door to people in their time of need and say no. We will say yes, and we will learn the good lessons of the wonderful experience of making the right decision 40 years ago, to the great benefit of Britain and those families in particular, and to the benefit of the wider world.

Keith Vaz: It is a huge pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on securing the debate, and on having assiduously visited many Members to persuade them to support it. I also pay tribute to the co-ordination between him and another Ugandan Asian’s son who is in the House of Lords, Lord Popat of Harrow. I understand that at 2.30 pm today the other place will also debate these important issues.
	We should acknowledge that, although she was not born in Uganda, the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is the product of Ugandan Asian parents. The House of Commons has its fair share of representation of those whose families came from Uganda and settled in this country, although the other House has probably done slightly better in that regard.
	My speech has two purposes: to recognise the perseverance and hard work of the Ugandan Asians who came to live in my constituency, and to celebrate the next generation. As we have heard, in 1972 28,000 Ugandan Asians came to Britain, and 10,000—a third of them—settled in Leicester. Let me start by saying the Ugandan Asian community has undoubtedly transformed the city of Leicester. In the early 1970s, Leicester was facing an economic crisis. The shrinking of the manufacturing sector, and in particular the hosiery industry, presented a real challenge to the city, but the Ugandan Asians came and rebuilt Leicester. They have transformed the city, and also the country. It has become fashionable to denigrate and criticise immigrants, but the same media outlets that used to say immigrants have come here to live off state benefits now celebrate their achievements.
	In order to understand Leicester’s transformation, we must understand the journey of the Ugandan Asians. As the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire said, the contribution of the Ugandan Asians to Africa was profound. They transformed, and helped shape, Uganda. As well as holding the great festivals that we now also celebrate here, in a real sense they were the economic heart of Uganda—the doctors, the teachers, the business people.
	My constituent, Nisha Popat, was born in Jinja, Uganda. Her father, Manu Lakhani, observed:
	“Life in Uganda, I would say, was really, really wonderful because there was no tension. People were all friendly.”
	He added that the Ugandan Asians made a great contribution to the country. My wife was born in east Africa, and she, too, has told me about how the east African Asians helped that continent.
	We have heard about what Idi Amin did. The Ugandan Asians had to leave their homes and businesses—their money, friends and properties. That is a matter of record. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) described them queuing up, emotionally scarred by the experience of having to get their passports and come here.
	Many arrived in Leicester with just a single bag, and they faced enormous hostility. Marches through Leicester were organised by the National Front, whose membership rocketed. We have also heard about what representatives on Leicester city council said, with some honourable exceptions, including Sir Peter Soulsby. An advertisement was placed—in the Uganda Argu s, not the Leicester Mercury—telling people not to come:
	“In your own interests and those of your family you should not come to Leicester.”
	They came anyway, and soon Leicester will be the first city in Europe with a majority ethnic population. That is a source of great civic pride, which I and my parliamentary colleagues from Leicester, my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), share.

Jonathan Ashworth: Although we in Leicester have, of course, been remembering this 40th anniversary over recent weeks, we have also been remembering my right hon. Friend’s 25 years as a Leicester Member of Parliament—and we all look forward to his next 25 years. Does he agree that today Leicester is a tremendously harmonious city, and that that is in large part thanks to the great work done by the city council over many years, and also to the mosques, gurdwaras, temples and churches, as well as to all the other organisations such as the Federation of Muslim Organisations and the Gujarat Hindu Association? They have all worked very hard on this matter and continue to do so.

Keith Vaz: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has given a name-check to some of the more prominent organisations, although there are many others.
	The new arrivals settled in Highfields, Spinney Hill and Belgrave in my constituency, and in Rushey Mead. Ila Radia described her situation, as did Jitubhen Radia, who remembered of her arrival:
	“It was very cold as we had no heating. I used to go to bed with my coat on.”
	Aruna Badiani commented that
	“my parents used to really suffer, because we struggled in the cold weather, with no central heating”,
	and they were very isolated.
	The new arrivals worked for companies including British United Shoe Machinery, Corah, Imperial Typewriters, GE Lighting, and Walkers Crisps. Bala Thakrar recalls her first days at school in England:
	“I suppose going into the school was frightening. I went to a school where there weren’t many other Asian or African children so that for me was the biggest shock”
	because all the children seemed so different. A teacher at the time, Mrs Gordon, said about the enthusiastic Ugandan Asian children:
	“Sometimes a bit too keen, you know; they all wanted to be brain surgeons and doctors, but you got used to that.”
	At that stage, of course, none of them wanted to be what the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire became: a Member of Parliament.
	The new arrivals worked hard. They rebuilt their lives and held on to their values and culture. They were determined to create a new life for themselves, and made a truly significant impact on Leicester’s economy. One estimate suggests that the 10,000 who came to Leicester have created 30,000 jobs in the city. Those people included Bhagwanji Lakhani who set up the world-famous Bobby’s restaurant in my constituency, and Jayanti Chandarana, who bought his first petrol station in the 1970s.
	Today the Ugandan Asian community is a part of the Leicester landscape. To see that we just have to walk down the Belgrave road in my constituency. I know the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) loves his constituency and area as much as I love mine, but if there were a competition, the Belgrave road would probably beat the Ealing road. On the Belgrave road is our “golden mile” as it is popularly known, because it boasts a range of shops and enterprises run by Ugandan Asians. I know that today a television screen has been set up in the Belgrave neighbourhood centre, and the community has gathered to watch this debate.
	There are businesses such as Ram Jewellers and Kampala Jewellers and the great sari shop, Sheetals, as well as restaurants and caterers such as Mirch Masala, Sanjay Foods and Sharmilee. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South is granted a visa to enter Leicester East to eat at these establishments. He might also choose to pop into the shop of the world-famous photographer, Maz Mashru, who has won the Kodak gold award for his amazing pictures.
	Their contribution has not gone unrecognised by a grateful city. The local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, dedicated pages to the achievements of the Ugandan Asians who came here. An exhibition was staged at the New Walk museum to celebrate their accomplishments. Such was its success that it will have a permanent home in the spring at the Newarke Houses museum.
	We have heard from Members representing Slough, Harrow, Southwark and even Banff and Buchan, and we will hear later from a Member representing Wolverhampton. That illustrates that the Ugandan Asians
	have gone all over the country. I am particularly focused on the next generation, however. Those of us who came here as first-generation immigrants—I came here at the age of nine, and from Yemen, not east Africa—have opened the doors. The next generation will be the golden generation, because of the contribution they can make not as first-generation immigrants, but as equal citizens of this country.
	That is true of the Ugandan Asians, and also of all the other communities who come here. Questions are nowadays asked about whether multiculturalism is a fad of the past. It is, in fact, very important. It is what won us the Olympics. Team GB was a mirror of Britain. Athletes from different backgrounds won us gold medals, and silvers and bronzes, because of the work they have done as equal citizens.
	I have great ambitions and hopes for the next generation of Ugandan Asians. They have huge ambition themselves, and great talent and amazing capabilities. Perhaps one day a Ugandan Asian will be speaking not from the Back Benches, but from the Treasury Bench, winding up for the Government in important debates such as this one. I hope I am a Member long enough to see that.
	I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire for enabling us to debate this important subject, and I say to the Ugandan Asians, both in the Belgrave neighbourhood centre in Leicester and throughout the country, who are watching our debate, “The best is yet to come. What you’ve gone through, no community has had to go through. The best is yet to come for you, for the people of Leicester, and for the people of this great country.”

Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminds me that I try to end most speeches by saying that we can look with affection to the past, with admiration to the present and with confidence to the future. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) has managed to secure this debate, as I have learned a lot from those who have spoken.
	My grandmother took in a Russian after the great war; my parents, when I moved out of my bedroom, took in a Hungarian refugee after the uprising; and my wife and I were delighted to go to an RAF camp in Kent to collect Razia and Roshan Jetha, who came to live with us for a year and a half. We learned a great deal from them, and I was also grateful for the £5 a week they gave us, which helped with the housekeeping.
	The key point about the Ugandan resettlement is that within two years the resettlement board had produced its final report and almost none of the evacuees were out of work. We cannot say that all the problems had been solved, but the job had been done. If people look at the record of the Adjournment debate that David Lane, the then MP for Cambridge, had on 29 July 1974, which was responded to by Alex Lyon, they will see those who helped to contribute to that—the voluntary groups, the Churches and the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service, among others.
	Nationality is one of the issues in this debate, which must be seen in the context of the see-saw in Britain between justice and racialism, both of which we have
	had and perhaps still have. J. B. Priestley, during the war, asked us to name our eight great-grandparents. Most of us cannot do that, so we cannot actually know precisely who we are. Dorothy Sayers, in an essay or talk she wrote during the war called “The Mysterious English”, which was published in “Unpopular Opinions”, one of Victor Gollancz’s yellow-covered books, tried to explain to people what it was to be English. She said that we were “a nation” rather than “a race”, but to go into her argument would take up more time than I have available. It is worth remembering that when Idi Amin went mad it was in the context of Kenya and Tanzania doing the same kind of thing as he was doing and when the UK was in the middle of passing a succession of immigration laws in 1962, 1968 and 1971. In 1968, James Callaghan openly said that in these sorts of circumstances, which he would not have foreseen directly, we would take in the people of British nationality. As it happened, Idi Amin wanted to get rid of the 23,000 Asians who had Ugandan nationality as well, so we are not particularly talking about those who had chosen one kind of passport rather than another.
	I pay tribute to Sir Charles Cunningham and the resettlement board, because they managed to bring the resources together. They asked for help, they provided it and they brought in the evacuees at £70 a head for each flight. As well as taking the offers from other parts of the world, they provided the basis for letting the Asians from Uganda join in our community in a way that was just regarded as natural by most who met them. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to King Freddie, and two of my children were at school with King Freddie’s children or nephews and nieces. It was perfectly normal and natural; although everyone has backgrounds, some happier than others, some grander than others, at that age people accept each other as they are. That is one of the contributions that the Ugandan Asians have made, and the same can be said of the Kenyan Asians and the Tanzanian Asians.
	We ought to try once a year to have a debate on inclusiveness. Others might think of it as “diversity” but I think it is inclusiveness; it is about how we give people the chance to make a contribution to their own lives, to their communities and to the nation. If we can do that, we can be proud of being on the right side of the see-saw: on the side of British justice rather than racialism.
	I end with some words about a man I first knew when he was the vicar of Tulse Hill—after other jobs, he later became the Archbishop of York. I turn around words that he had once used in my hearing by saying, “They came, they saw and they stuck to it.” He put it as “Veni, vidi, velcro.”

Paul Uppal: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) for securing this debate. As protocol, we refer to those on our Benches as hon. Friends, but I am happy to say that he is a personal friend. Interestingly, just as I am about to speak two other personal friends seem to have joined me. I am taking a bit of risk in speaking without any notes or having preparing for the debate. I am not sure whether they are here to see me fall flat on my face, but I think their interests are benign.
	Why am I here? I am of east African descent. My father came to this country from Kenya in 1961. He had less than £5 in his pocket and no idea of where he was going to sleep that night. He took that risk because he wanted to live in a country that had choice, freedom and opportunity. For my father, it was not too bad, but my uncle’s situation and story were slightly different. In Cusumo we ran a small electrical business and from the mid to late ’60s life was made very uncomfortable for my uncle.

Bob Stewart: Cusumo in Uganda?

Paul Uppal: In Kenya. In essence, my uncle left with just the shirt on his back and the opportunity to come to the UK. He followed my father and came here. He was driven by those same principles of wanting to live in a country where he had opportunity, choice and freedom. That story was replicated by many thousands of people, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for raising an issue that has been highlighted so often: in early 1968, in what Andrew Marr described as one of the most shameful periods of British politics, more than 40,000 Kenyan Asians were made stateless. It is important to put things in perspective, and what is so good about these Back-Bench debates is the quality of the debate. There is an attempt to be non-partisan, but it is sometimes important for us to have an honest and cathartic debate to recognise where shortfalls have occurred.
	I was born in the UK and went to school here. When I think back to those early days, I recall that often between shutting the front door and getting to school I was told to go home on about half a dozen occasions. I was not sure where home was really. Home for me was a small two up, two down in Smethwick, where eight or 10 of us would sit around of an evening having a meal. What I encountered did not stop when I reached school. I am not going to embellish things and I can assure the House that this next story is a true one. In one of my technical drawing lessons when I was probably about 11 years old, the deputy head master was asking the students what we were going to do that evening and he asked—I will tone this down—whether anyone was going out bashing Asian people. I remember my spine getting very stiff. I was attempting to draw a straight line as I said that, but it wobbled as those last few words came out.
	This debate, and the way in which it has been conducted, has brought back so many memories, and that is why I wanted to speak in it. I am now the Member for Wolverhampton South West, which was represented by Enoch Powell between 1950 and 1974, so therein lies another story. When Enoch Powell first won the seat in 1950 he had a majority of 691, as did I when I won my seat in 2010. If I feel a compulsion to make a radical speech in 16 years’ time in a Midland hotel, please feel free, my most respected friends, to hold me back and stop me—although I suspect that is unlikely.
	I return to the main point of today’s debate and what we are, in essence, talking about. I picked up on one sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire: he said that this period showed Britain at its best. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister are anxious to speak on this issue, so I will not delay them for too long. However, I think one
	thing encapsulates this period of British history more than anything else. I was listening recently to a chaplain from RAF Cosford talking about an experience that he had had. The term “concentration camp” has been used today, and he was speaking about his experience when visiting such a camp. I am not sure whether it was Auschwitz-Birkenau, but from the images he saw he was struck by one thing. He said, “If you have two rooms, one full of light and one full of darkness and you open the door to the one that has light, the light will spread into the darkness.” In this period of history we can look at the British role and at British politicians as spreading light into a time of darkness. It is important for us to remember that, especially as we take this issue forward.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz): the best days are ahead of us for the east African Asian community. Its contribution has been phenomenal. It is cathartic for me to stand in this wonderful Chamber and speak about these issues, especially as I have mentioned the history of growing up as a small boy in Smethwick, walking to school and having to face those experiences. I dare say that my father will be watching this speech—or perhaps even taping it, as even though he is retired he seems to be busier than I am. That is very much the ethos of so many east African Asians. He came here to work and he still does; he embodies the best that is British.
	I have a Christian first name and a Sikh surname. I have always tried to live by the ethos of trying to combine the best of my British values with my traditional Indian values. I am not alone in that. All east African Asians who have come to this country—and many other migrants, if we are honest—have tried to adopt it. They enrich their host culture and the indigenous communities with which they mix. When we have that combination, we have a formula for success.

Seema Malhotra: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) for securing the debate. The 40th anniversary of the arrival in Britain of the Asians who were expelled from Uganda is a wonderful occasion that allows us to pay tribute to those who left so much and suffered so much on the way, but who have now contributed so much to Britain.
	I want to add a few words to the moving speeches made by so many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). The range of contributions on and references to places across Uganda shows that the voice of the Ugandan Asians has spread across this country. We have seen their contribution in areas far and wide as well as in constituencies such as mine.
	I was born in Britain and I am a British Asian. Although my family did not come directly from east Africa, members of my extended family did. They hid so well the suffering and sacrifice they had to make from the next generation that I never knew until I was much older what had happened and how the community had supported itself and stayed strong in times of great
	hardship on arrival. I want to mention someone who was very dear to me but who died a year ago, just before my election: Mr Jagpal founded the Vedic Cultural Society, which makes a strong contribution to our community in Hounslow and brings people together in faith as well as in cultural activities. He was a true example of the role of those individuals. They resettled their families and their children at new schools and started new jobs, in which often they had had no experience, simply to make ends meet; and, in the amazing tradition of parents under stress, created a better life for the next generation, ensuring that those who came after did not face the same suffering as they did but went on to play a huge part in their nation.
	I am incredibly proud of Britain. That time is marked out in our recent British history as a time of great compassion, of great welcome to those from abroad and of when we saw the diverse fabric of Britain at its very best. It absorbed those people within the nation and made Britain the diverse nation it is. We have seen the value of that this year in our winning the Olympics. Indians took part in the opening and closing ceremonies and showed that we have managed as Asians in Britain to become a strong part of the fabric of this country. We maintain links with our separate histories, but do so in a way that makes Britain even stronger in the world.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing the debate and pay tribute to all those in my community who, through businesses, schools and their community contributions, play such a huge part in our public life in Britain.

Chris Williamson: It is a privilege to speak in this debate from the Front Bench, as what started out as a humanitarian catastrophe has turned into an amazing human success story. This has been a celebratory debate, which we do not often have in this Chamber, and it has united the whole House this afternoon. We have heard a number of very moving speeches, but I want to pay particular tribute, as others have already, to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) for his tenacity in securing the debate. As we know, it was replaced by the discussion on the Leveson inquiry and I am pleased that he persevered and succeeded in bringing the issue before us this afternoon.
	We have also heard passionate and heart-warming contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). It is a mark of how far we have come that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West represents the seat that was once represented by Enoch Powell.
	Despite my youthful appearance, I remember the terrible events of 1972, when General Idi Amin decided to expel the Asian Ugandans after, I think, the British refused to provide financial support. I heard a documentary earlier this year that reported that Idi Amin had
	subsequently apologised for that decision—rather late, it must be said. One of the consequences of that decision was that it was catastrophic for the Ugandan economy. It had a damaging impact on Uganda, and perhaps that was one of the reasons Idi Amin recognised the error of his ways and apologised for his actions.
	Edward Heath’s Government tried to negotiate with Idi Amin, but unfortunately did not get anywhere. As we have heard, the Ugandan Asians were told they would be imprisoned in concentration camps if they did not leave the country within 90 days. After the events of the second world war, which were relatively recent history, it was appalling to hear about concentration camps and putting people into them. We were faced with a humanitarian crisis. The Heath Government looked to settle people in other countries but they found that very difficult, as many refused, so they offered the Ugandan Asians the opportunity to come to Britain. It has to be said that that was one of Ted Heath’s finest hours.
	The Ugandan Asians who came to Britain had few, if any, possessions, and many were robbed by the Ugandan authorities. Those immigrants went through a terribly traumatic experience. We have heard that the mass migration was very controversial at the time, and it came just a few years after Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech. Edward Heath was worried about Enoch Powell and that that speech could increase racial tensions. We know that that led to the introduction of a new immigration Act, whereby the right to British citizenship for Indians in other countries, such as Kenya, was revoked.
	On arrival in the UK many Ugandan Asians were bussed to Strandishall in Suffolk and put into temporary accommodation until they could be settled across the country. The migrants subsequently relocated to various parts of the UK, as we have heard today. The legacy of that migration has been extremely positive. Again, we have heard many examples this afternoon. Many of the Ugandan Asians were skilled and educated workers and so were able to integrate into society successfully. It is worth acknowledging that although Leicester city council at the time took out advertisements, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East pointed out, urging Ugandan Asians not to settle in Leicester, a third of the Ugandan Asians did settle there and have made a huge and positive contribution. Leicester is now an exemplar of how a diverse and cohesive community can form over time.
	The story of Britain’s response to the plight of the Ugandan Asians is an illustration of what makes Britain such a great country. It illustrates the sort of actions that make all of us in the Chamber today and, I am sure, the rest of the nation proud to be British.

Don Foster: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) not only on securing the debate but on the passion with which he spoke. It is a great pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government in this commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, welcoming the contribution they have made to Britain and their integration into the fabric of the nation. Like the hon. Member for
	Derby North (Chris Williamson), I am delighted that it has been a celebratory debate, uniting the whole House.
	I am grateful for the contributions of all Members to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) reminded us of the constant need to point to the huge contribution that many immigrants have made to the life of this country and that in relation to asylum seekers this must be a country that, in times of need, will not close its doors. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) echoed such views and spoke of the contribution of immigrants to many different aspects of life in this country, not least to our vibrant cultural life. She also rightly pointed to lessons to be learned and cited examples of legislation that did not show us at our most tolerant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—or, as he said, from the melting pot of Harrow East—praised those who came for wanting to get on with it, encapsulating what is great about Britain. He reminded us of the contribution that many of the Ugandan Asians made in sports such as cricket and hockey. Above all, he made it clear, as did the hon. Member for Derby North, that Uganda’s loss was Britain’s gain.

Bob Stewart: Although I have not been present for the whole debate, I understand that no one has mentioned the courage of Ugandan Asian soldiers, sailors and airmen serving their new country. I want to put that on the record: thank you, Ugandan Asians.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual eloquent way. I certainly support his remarks.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) celebrated the contribution of one of her own constituents, Vinay, who used his energy, compassion and entrepreneurial skills for the benefit of the local community. I thank her for that example. As she pointed out, he, like many others who came, gave far more to our society than they ever received from us.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made his usual powerful contribution. As we celebrate his 25 years in this place, he celebrated the contribution of Ugandan Asians, not only the first generation but now the next generation—the golden generation, as he described them—to rebuilding and transforming the city of Leicester, and what they are doing and have done since that time. As he said, and I am sure he is right, the best is yet to come.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) paid tribute to the one body that has not been mentioned other than by him, the resettlement board, which certainly deserves our praise for the work it did.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for his kind comments, but the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), has been in the House longer than I have, and we have not had his celebration yet.
	This debate is about a celebration of 40 years. Sometimes when new communities arrive, there is a tendency to criticise them and what they do when they first arrive. Is there not a lesson about the way in which we use language when new communities arrive? I am thinking about the east European community, which, over the past eight years since accession, has made such a great contribution to this country, but there are still criticisms
	of it. We need to be careful because at the end of the day, the contribution can be seen.

Don Foster: I absolutely agree. A similar point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) described his own family’s experience coming here, wanting choice, freedom and opportunity, and pointed out that when they got here they used them to full advantage, making, as he described it, a phenomenal contribution. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) described the ongoing contribution that Ugandan Asians are making in her constituency, and her pride in Britain’s compassion and the welcome that was given then and which we continue to give to incoming immigrants.
	Looking back over the past 40 years to those fateful months in 1972, we know that the United Kingdom acted swiftly. Idi Amin announced on 4 August 1972 that there was no room in Uganda for British Asians. By 18 September the first 193 British Asians from Uganda arrived at Stansted airport, and in the first year, 1972-73, a total of 38,500 Ugandans Asians came to Britain. Even in that initial period we saw the seeds of the ongoing success of the British Ugandan Asians. By mid-November 1972 more than 1,000 employers had already offered jobs to the newcomers.
	Many people have been praised today but we should not forget the work of Praful Patel, then secretary of the all-party committee on United Kingdom citizenship and now a key organiser of the 40th anniversary events this year, who, following the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, became a member of the Uganda resettlement board, which has been mentioned, and was involved at an individual level, helping thousands of families to mend separated and broken lives. There are success stories everywhere. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is one of them, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). Lata Patel was the mayor of Brent back in 1996, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a well respected journalist and author, Rupal Rajani is a BBC journalist. Mohammed Asif Din played cricket for Warwickshire, and Tarique Ghaffur CBE QPM was an assistant Commissioner at the Met police. There are many others who could be mentioned.
	Only a day ago I had a letter from a successful British Ugandan Asian who wrote:
	“The lessons learnt show that with compassion, decency and understanding an impoverished community can come to the UK and grow, thrive and in time be big contributors to UK society and the UK economy.”
	I want to acknowledge the immense courage of the former Prime Minister Edward Heath and his Government back in 1972. I must mention, of course, the generous response that the British people made to help Ugandan Asian refugees as they settled in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said, it was a time when Britain was at its best.
	I want briefly to put the debate in the context of this Government’s work on integration or, as my hon. Friend
	the Member for Worthing West would prefer to call it, inclusiveness. We are doing what we can to live up to our responsibility to create greater confidence among those who come to this country, encouraging greater responsibility, promoting more activities and opportunities for personal and social development and at the same time giving help, support and guidance. We are running some 30-odd projects to assist in that area to promote social mobility—for example, working with leading figures in the British Asian cuisine industry to offer young people chef scholarships.
	We are also working with private sector partners in the business world to inspire young people through our enterprise challenge and industrial cadet projects. To promote participation in our communities and responsibility to each other and society, we are supporting Youth United so that over 10,000 more young people from all backgrounds can come together as part of national movements such as the scouts and the police cadets. We continue to provide support for English language tuition.
	In 1997, recognising the vitality lost to Uganda, President Museveni invited Ugandan Asians to return home. Some families returned, but most chose to remain in Britain. Those families have integrated into UK life and are one of this country’s biggest integration success stories. Later this year and next year a number of commemorative events will take place, including a thanksgiving event at Leicester cathedral and various dinners in London.
	I end by praising my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing the debate, which has allowed us to remember properly the events of 1972, recognise the contribution of British Ugandan Asians and welcome their integration into the fabric of the nation. A number of commemorative events are still to be held over the next few months, and I urge all Members of the House to participate in them enthusiastically.

Shailesh Vara: With the leave of the House, may I say that when the House debates people coming to this country there are often negative overtones, but it has been a pleasure—I think that all Members agree—to see today that the House is united in commemorating the 40th anniversary of the arrival of the Ugandan Asians, who have British passports and the majority of whom were of Indian origin. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate by telling us about their personal experiences or those of their constituents. In so doing, we have finally recorded, 40 years on, the enormous contribution that this relatively small number of people—28,000—have made to the United Kingdom and the fact that Britain really was at its best. It showed its true character, its warmth, generosity and ability to care for those in need. To paraphrase a famous quote: they came, they saw, they integrated.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House commemorates the 40th Anniversary of the arrival in Britain of Asians expelled from Uganda, notes their contribution to Britain and welcomes their integration into the fabric of the nation.

Defence Personnel

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2010-12, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties, HC 762, and the Governme nt Response, HC 1855;  Eighth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2010-12, The Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts, 2010-11, HC 1635, and the Government  Response, HC 85;  Second Report from the Defence Committee, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 2: Accommodation, HC 331, and  the Government Response HC 578; and  uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 21 November 2012, The Work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces, HC 750-i.]

James Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of defence personnel.
	If I may, I would like to begin, rather oddly, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on the previous debate, which was outstanding—despite the fact that it has taken time away from the defence debate. I think that it was a really worthwhile way of starting today’s Back-Bench business.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us a debate on personnel issues. We discover that there is a disadvantage in having this debate during the week of the autumn statement, because has been relegated to the end of a day after not only the important debate we have just had, but important statements that have to be made following the autumn statement. Because there is less time than there might otherwise have been, I will take as little time as possible in order to allow everyone who wishes to speak to do so.
	There will inevitably be subjects I do not cover. I am afraid that I will not cover the important issue of reductions of certain historic and well-recruited regiments, but I hope that, by not speaking about that, I will allow other right hon. and hon. Members to do so, and with greater knowledge than I could possibly show. I shall say little about redundancies or reservists, because the Defence Committee has recently conducted a number of inquiries into those subjects. Yesterday, we took the unusual step of announcing in advance the Committee’s programme for the remainder of this Parliament. It will include inquiries into some of these important matters.
	One of the advantages of having the debate today is that it seems to have prompted the Ministry of Defence to produce lots of documents, including its accounts for 2011-12 and the annual report on the covenant. It is always nice to have the MOD’s accounts, even if the auditor qualifies them, as always, by saying that they do not show a true or fair view of the state of the MOD’s finances. It would have been nicer still if we had had the accounts in June or July, when we should have done, but no doubt the accounting officer will be able to give an explanation when he comes before us next week—an event to which I know the whole Defence Committee will be looking forward enormously.
	Today’s annual report on the armed forces covenant is welcome. It reflects many of the suggestions made by the Committee in its continuing series of inquiries into the covenant, for example on doubling council tax
	relief, on the false economy created by the pause in the refurbishment of single living accommodation, on home ownership and on health care, particularly mental health care, for veterans and reservists. Those are not acknowledged as being the Committee’s suggestions, but we know the terms of trade and do not mind that, so long as the MOD from time to time listens to what we say and does something about it.
	The relationship between the MOD and the Select Committee needs to contain an element of constructive tension—almost scratchy; never cosy. Sometimes there is more tension than constructiveness, but I tell the Minister that the more open his Department is with the Committee, the more we can help to get his policies right. We shall shortly be producing a report on the Service Complaints Commissioner, who, as usual, gave us most helpful evidence a couple of weeks ago. I hope that the Minister will listen and respond positively to what we will say on Dr Atkins’ extremely valuable role.
	The MOD does sometimes help us. Last week it helped the Committee to have an extremely valuable visit to Afghanistan as part of our normal programme of visiting our armed forces wherever they are deployed. Several issues arose, and they are what I want to concentrate on for the remainder of my short remarks.
	I will touch first on welfare matters, starting with decompression. At the end of a six-month tour, we consider it essential to ensure that our troops are provided with a period of what is known as decompression. Often that takes place in Cyprus on the way home, when the returning troops, over a few kegs of beer, are reminded that their spouses will have been living their own lives while they were away and will not necessarily understand exactly what they have been through. These are absolutely essential reminders.
	However, apparently decompression is not considered essential when our forces return for a two-week break in the middle of a tour. That suggests that we need to rethink the entire concept of the two-week break, not of decompression itself. Is the two-week break necessary or a good thing? For example, when our troops are working alongside the Americans, who, unlike British forces, get travel time taken off their break but get only a two-week rest and relaxation break in a one-year tour, does that create resentments on either side? Is the entire concept of a break destabilising? If, for operational reasons, someone’s break comes very near the beginning or end of their tour, what good does it do? The armed forces and the Ministry of Defence need to begin to think about these things very seriously.
	The armed forces sometimes need to make serious and difficult choices between welfare and operational output. I suspect that in 2014 the welfare of our troops in Afghanistan will be pretty minimal, frankly. We will have drawn down and taken away much of their support system, and, as we were told, they will be living out of the backs of their vehicles. The troops and, just as importantly, we need to know that, think about it, and accept it now. This is not about stopping looking after the armed forces who do so much for us; it is about putting it in the context that their primary task is operational, and that when they signed up they also signed up to an element of austerity when necessary.
	Another issue that arose was detention. There is a genuine problem over the legal ability to transfer those whom we detain to the Afghan authorities, which were
	accused in the past of mistreating one of the people we had previously transferred. We visited the detention facility in question, and we were impressed with the new deputy governor, who has a good international track record in observing and enforcing human rights. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that there should be a speedy solution to this problem. We must not run the risk of being forced to hold on to people whom our troops detain, because that might lengthen our involvement in Afghanistan in certain respects far beyond the period for which we would wish to be so involved. Still less must we put our troops at risk of being subject to any legal challenge regarding a failure to obey international law in what they have done. I suggest that in future there should always be an Afghan element in the capture, interrogation and detention of those suspected of insurgency or dealing in narcotics so that in all cases the detention is Afghan, not British, and the problem therefore does not arise. However, such a solution would require complicated discussions between ourselves and the Afghan authorities, and I appreciate that it will not be easy to achieve.
	Our role in Afghanistan now is to step back, and that is a very difficult thing for the British armed forces to do. Their natural inclination, as the sort of people they are with the sort of qualities they have, is to step in and help; that is what they are trained to do. However, we are now reaching the stage in Afghanistan where the best help we can give is not to help. One aspect of this is the insider threat, which is sometimes referred to as “green on blue”. One of the soldiers we talked to in Camp Bastion said that it is absolutely galling that the very people we are there to help might turn on us. The risk is not going to go away; all we can do is minimise it. My own view—I do not know about other members of the Defence Committee—is that we are doing our very best to achieve that. If we draw the conclusion that we cannot trust the Afghan security forces, we will be quite wrong. It is a fantastic country with wonderful people who are, let us not forget, being asked to learn in a few years what it took us centuries to learn. It will still be necessary for our troops to help to use the ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—assets that we have and to call in the medical helicopters that are so highly regarded, but it will increasingly be less necessary for them to patrol alongside the Afghan patrols, which are becoming more capable day by day.
	We came away from Afghanistan with a strong message. At the end of the summer, an instruction went out to the insurgents that they should fight their way through the winter. Despite that, the insurgency dropped away very suddenly. The insurgents are finding it increasingly hard to raise and retain their money and resources. They are also finding it very difficult to persuade their co-insurgents to fight Afghan soldiers, who are becoming increasingly competent. That competence is likely to increase with the advent of the academy for officer training, to be run along the lines of Sandhurst. We went to visit it. It is currently a building site, true, but the Afghans have begun to identify their first training officers and non-commissioned officers, who are clearly of extremely high quality. They have set themselves some enormously high challenges—for example, to have 150 female officer cadets a year passing through the
	college. In the long run—this point was most validly made to us by President Karzai—the issue of the equal treatment of women is likely to be resolved not by western influence or by the hectoring of countries such as ours but by education and the visibility of the outside world provided by the internet.
	We found that security is no longer the primary issue of concern for most Afghans. There is still fear when people travel from one part of the country to another, but the ability of Afghans to farm in peace, and to get their goods to market on an increasingly secure road network, is being greatly improved. This has been achieved by a combination of the actions of our troops and the actions of the Afghan national security forces—police and army, pleasingly—in doing what our troops are training them to do.
	Some say that we should leave Afghanistan now. In one sense, that is what we are doing. If we wanted to leave tomorrow, it would in fact take us about 18 months to do so. We are doing it by leaving in place a working security apparatus that will help to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a threat to this country. By staying involved after the end of combat operations in 2014, we will ensure that there is transition, not abandonment. The strongest message that we received from our personnel in Afghanistan was that we should hold our nerve and stick to the plan, which is a good one.
	Here I should acknowledge something: I was wrong. I believed that by setting a date for us to leave Afghanistan we were playing into the hands of the Taliban, who would just wait us out. I told the Prime Minister that if we concentrated on success, we would make it easier for us to leave, whereas if we concentrated on leaving, we would make it harder for us to succeed. It hard for me to say this, but the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) were quite right and I was quite wrong. In practice, the Afghans needed us to step back, and they needed a timetable. Arguably, by setting a date in 2014 the Prime Minister bought more time for the international security assistance force to achieve transition than it would have had if the time scale had been left open ended.
	Finally, I would like to pay tribute to our armed forces. They are going through a tough time at the moment, as is the entire country. They know they are not immune from the financial hardship afflicting us all. They are facing redundancies, reductions in the pensions they can expect and a smaller total expenditure on defence.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many service personnel want clarity from the Ministry of Defence on what will happen to arrangements for units in which husbands and wives are based? They, like the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, and me, were under the impression that we might learn that from a statement from the MOD as soon as next Tuesday. Is he aware of reports suggesting that that announcement will not take place next Tuesday and does he know of any reasons why that might be? If not, perhaps the Minister on the Treasury Bench could clarify whether that is correct.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Chief of the General Staff was asked a similar question when he appeared before us
	yesterday. Unsurprisingly, the timing of statements is a matter for the Government. We will have to wait to hear from the Minister whether this has been affected by the changes announced in yesterday’s autumn statement, but he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and will no doubt be eager to cover it in his contribution, even if he does not look too eager at present.
	As I have said, the Chief of the General Staff appeared before us and he said that this was a worrying and destabilising time for the armed forces. Picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is certainty that the armed forces want—they just want to know where they stand so that they can plan their lives accordingly.
	It is our job as a Parliament to recognise what our armed forces do for us and to thank them for it. I am pleased that the country seems to be well aware of how much we owe our armed forces, and today is our opportunity to acknowledge it and to thank them.

Gisela Stuart: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), who spoke in the previous debate and reminded me—this is important—that he probably arrived in the west midlands as a Ugandan Asian at the same time that I arrived there as a German. He now occupies Enoch Powell’s old seat and I have Neville Chamberlain’s old seat. That shows our extraordinary diversity and ability to assimilate and accommodate people from all parts of the world.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Lady is also holding a piece of paper in her hand.

Gisela Stuart: Yes, I am holding a piece of paper—or several of them—in my hand.
	Before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire beats himself up too much about having been wrong, he should remember that we have not yet withdrawn from Afghanistan. I hope that we will both end up having to say that we have been proved wrong, but we should be anything but complacent about what happens in Afghanistan and about the ease of withdrawal. The closer we get to the withdrawal date and the more we have to ensure the safety of our own troops—we are not entirely clear who provides that security—the more difficult it will get. The situation reminds me of when children leave home: we cannot wait for them to leave home, but the closer the time gets, the more nervous we get about them having to step out.
	I want to start by addressing a big issue and then move on to something more specific. I am often accused of having a typical foreigner’s emotional attachment to British institutions, which is probably true of a few people. I have always been extremely proud of a country that has a sense of itself and its role in the world, but the recent strategic defence reviews and what has been happening in other Departments have made me begin to wonder whether we still have that sense of self and of our role in the world.
	I would assert that we now have a Ministry of Defence that says that we will provide the amount of troops that we can afford in order to balance the books, rather than
	starting off by saying, “This is the role we wish to play in the world.” I would have expected a strategic defence review to start by saying, “We have a Navy because we are an island and therefore we need x, y and z,” and, “Our air force is a certain size because we have assessed the risk from the air.” The commitment and engagement that we wish to see outside these islands should determine the size of our Army. I have seen no such clear statement as to what we are about.

James Gray: I absolutely agree with and entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says about the foreign policy baseline for any strategic defence review, but does she not agree that, if we were to start from that standpoint, it would be almost inevitable that we would end up with a requirement that was vastly greater than the nation could afford?

Gisela Stuart: That may well be the case, but we have to start with where we think we should be and then we can work out where we ought to be. It is not just the MOD that lacks that strategic sense. At one stage, the Department for International Development had a clear statutory duty of poverty reduction, but even that is being reviewed and rethought at the moment—I am not entirely sure where that takes us. Our Foreign Office is also reducing its influence. If we consider how this country projects itself to the rest of the world, we will see that there is a lack of clarity in those lead Departments that ought to provide a collective view.
	I asked myself whether this was happening all over the world and looked at comparative figures for GDP spending on NATO. Even if we look back as far as the 1950s, there is a consistent pattern within the European Union. Our country and France contribute well over 2% of GDP commitment, so we clearly have a view on where we should be in terms of spending.
	It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons between armed forces numbers, because we ended conscription. The Italian and German figures in particular—they sometimes include police forces—are somewhat misleading, but nevertheless the pattern shows that we are still big significant players. We have no sense, however, of why we want to be the big players. What are we going to do?
	I want to leave the Minister with a final example of that muddled, confused thinking. In my experience, it is always when we are not entirely sure what we want to say that we end up constructing sentences that are utterly meaningless. The Defence Committee took evidence yesterday on the Army 2020 review and I was struck by something called, “Figure 1: Force Development Deductions”. I invite the Minister to look at the relevant paragraph. I will not bore the House by reading it. It has about 10 sentences and I am glad that the word “broadband” is in there, because that is about the only word I understood. I drew the attention of our witness, General Sir Peter Wall, to that paragraph and asked him about it, and he confessed his confusion about the precise meaning of that integral part of the report. He promised the Committee that he would consult the Babel fish and provide us with an English translation. I think that demonstrates that the MOD needs to be much clearer, particularly post-Afghanistan, of what we think our forces are for. It is no good just to say, “This is how much money we’ve got,” even though the money is important.
	This might again be a sign of my emotional attachment as a foreigner, but I am always struck by the island blindness of this country. This is an island, so how can we compromise some of our surveillance abilities? What will happen to maritime security? It is staggering. That is my general point for the Minister.
	My second point is much more grounded at home. Last week, I went to meet Malala Yousafzai’s father—the family are currently in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, which do extraordinary work. It was particularly pleasing for me to see that good work, because I was the evil Minister who closed down the military hospitals in places such as Gosport and I remember being denounced in endless Adjournment debates for doing so.

Kevan Jones: I closed the last one.

Gisela Stuart: But we closed them not because we wanted to, but because the royal colleges were telling us that the MOD could no longer provide the best medical services. Ten years ago, the NHS looked at the Ministry of Defence and said, “You guys really need to step up to the plate and improve your act.” Now, some of the work within defence medicine is miles ahead of what the NHS is doing in terms of rehabilitation and care. We have unexpected survival rates among soldiers, which one can see in the latest evidence from Afghanistan, that are well beyond what the NHS could do. That is a good development.

Mark Francois: To go back to the hon. Lady’s point about numbers, I declare an interest because my mother was Italian. Her point about the carabinieri being included is right. In my experience, the Chief of the General Staff is a very plain-speaking gentleman. If there has been any difficulty with that particular paragraph, I am sure that she will get a very clear reply.
	I echo her comments with regard to the role of 3 hospital at Camp Bastion. The stunning statistic from that facility in Helmand is that however severely wounded they are, 98% of the people who go through its doors alive come out alive. That is an incredible statistic and we pay tribute to that hospital.

Gisela Stuart: I also want to draw attention to the creation of the Fisher house on the site of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which has 18 en-suite rooms. It will be ready next year and will have much better facilities for the families. That is another good development.
	I do have concerns about the future. At the moment, our young injured heroes are young injured heroes. In 10 or 20 years’ time, they will be middle-aged, probably overweight like many of us, and will no longer have the image of a hero. Will we still look after them properly then? The military covenant mentions that point.
	The paper on the military covenant, which arrived so nicely in time for this debate, refers to the establishment of
	“a unified Defence Primary Healthcare Service”.
	I urge the Minister to talk to colleagues in the NHS about this matter, because I am in no way convinced that the commissioning structures that are being put in
	place, now that primary care trusts are no longer doing the commissioning, are sufficient to ensure that the very specialist services that our veterans need are provided not just for the next year, five years or 10 years, but in the long term. It is so much easier for Americans, because registering as a veteran gives them access to free medical health care. We do not have that in this country and it is easy to forget that in years to come, they will still have very special needs.
	I read through the report just before the debate and it states that we are planning to create that service, but we need to be more specific. Will it be a specialist commissioning unit? Will there be national commissioning? If so, how will it work throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, given that health is a devolved issue? This is going to be key in the long term to veterans trusting what we provide through the military covenant.
	This is a very useful debate. The key thing that I urge the Minister to go away with is that we need to have a much clearer sense of purpose and of what we want our armed forces to do. We must not just look at them when they have been injured or have given their life, as important as that is; I want them to be honoured, celebrated and recognised for the job that they want to do, and that is the job of fighting. We as a country need to have a sense of when we think something is worth fighting for. That needs to be spelt out at some stage or another by the Government.

Jack Lopresti: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the time for this important debate.
	The defence of the realm and the security of our people is the first and most important duty of any Government. Governments must demonstrate that they value the service and sacrifices of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Our defence personnel, both on operations and at home, do an awesome job. I know that the House is hugely grateful for everything that they do. I would like to put my personal thanks and appreciation on the record.
	We must ensure that our defence personnel have the kit that they need, and that we are clear and candid with them about the changes and challenges that they face. If we do that well, we will create an armed forces and a Ministry of Defence that are militarily effective and sustainable.
	The Government have done much of which they can be justly proud in regard to our defence personnel. The historic enshrining in law of the military covenant will change for ever how Governments and our society fulfil their obligations to our forces personnel, veterans and their families. The doubling of the operational allowance was also most welcome.
	However, aspects of the 2012 armed forces continuous attitude survey should give us all pause for thought and concern. Satisfaction with pay and pensions is down and our troops feel undervalued. The Government must appreciate that, no matter how resilient our armed forces are, uncertainty over their future is breeding low morale. I would like the Minister to address in his
	winding-up speech what steps the Department will take to ensure that all defence personnel are informed in a transparent and direct manner of exactly what changes will be affecting them as soon as is practical. Our armed forces are the best of Britain—there is no doubt about that—and they understand that changes need to take place. So let us not insult their intelligence. Let us be as clear and as frank as we can be. They will respect that, whatever the decisions may be.
	There are changes that need to be made. When the Government took office, it became abundantly clear that there was no money left. Under the last Government, the MOD was placed in special measures by the Treasury because of its inability to manage its budget. By making the difficult decisions and taking action, this Government have brought the finances back in order and under control.

Kevan Jones: I am intrigued by that point. The claim of both the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the current Defence Secretary is that they were left a £38 billion black hole. They seem to have plugged that within two years, which is remarkable. Clearly, the two of them should be Chancellor. I notice that there is no mention of that in the introduction to today’s annual accounts. We are still waiting for the figures. How can the hon. Gentleman claim that the budget has been balanced when no such evidence has been produced by the Department?

Jack Lopresti: There is no question but that the MOD’s finances were a mess when we took office. The words that I used were that the Government have “brought the finances back in order and under control.”
	I praise the Government’s ambition to have a more flexible armed forces on a sustainable footing, but I disagree that a smaller armed forces is needed. Ministers have said repeatedly that no one wants to see reductions in our armed forces, so why are we protecting spending on international development and aid and giving £9.3 billion a year to the EU? I was elected, as were my hon. Friends, on a mandate that called for an increase in the size of the Army.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. Does he share my concern that the further reductions or economies in defence spending that were announced yesterday may well end up as yet another reduction in the number of combat personnel in the armed forces?

Jack Lopresti: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and later in my remarks I will say that a time must come when we say, “Enough is enough; no more cuts.”
	I raised in a previous debate a point about the EU budget and foreign aid budgets being protected or increasing, and I was pleased when the former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), said that there is an alternative
	“and it is to reprioritise Government spending…we cannot justify spending ever more taxpayers’ money on overseas aid and cutting our armed forces.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 521.]
	My constituents and I are concerned that the planned reductions will leave us with the smallest Army since the Napoleonic wars. History shows that we rarely see the
	next war coming. We do not choose our wars—they choose us. Although our security is still largely protected by the Government’s plans, there must come a point when we draw a line in the sand and say to the Treasury, “No more reductions and no more cuts.”
	Defence Equipment and Support is based in my constituency. Many of my constituents work there and some have told me that changes are needed in the way it is structured and operates. Those civilian personnel are vital to the future of our armed forces and carry out crucial tasks. I have visited DE and S and have seen at first hand how important procurement, logistics and back-office operations are to the effectiveness and well-being of our troops in theatre and elsewhere.
	I look forward to an announcement on the proposed changes early in the new year so that the uncertainty felt by my constituents—and others who work at DE and S—is addressed. Whatever reforms the Government propose for DE and S, I ask them to seek cross-party support. The future of DE and S will have a long-term effect on the capability of our armed forces. It is in our national interest that the best kit for our troops is delivered at the right time to the right place, and of course we must also deliver the value for money to the taxpayer. Members on both Front Benches have a duty to work together to minimise the uncertainty and anxiety of DE and S personnel now and in the years to come with a reassurance that a future Government will not rip it up and start again.
	The Government have said that reserves will be at the heart of an adaptable whole force and I welcome the reserves review and the Future Force 2020 report. If the reserves of the future are to play an integral part in the defence of the realm, they must be fully integrated with regular forces on operations and exercise. I welcome the Government’s commitment to an additional £1.8 billion over the next decade for new equipment and training for reserves, as well as the consultation paper on engaging employers, which is crucial.

John Glen: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there could be the danger of undue reliance on large employers? Communities such as mine in Salisbury have a large number of smaller micro-employers. They are keen to participate in making reserves available, but there must be appropriate support for small businesses.

Jack Lopresti: I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude and support of employers is crucial for future reserves, and whether they succeed or fail largely depends on how we support smaller businesses that allow their employees to be deployed on operations and exercises for long periods of time.
	I am concerned about the post-deployment and aftercare of mobilised reservists. To serve their country on operations, reservists take a break from normal civilian, family and professional life, in most cases for up to a year. It is much harder for reservists to adjust to post-deployment life than it is for regular forces, because of the added factor of trying to get back to normal day-to-day life without the kind of support that a full-time soldier would receive, surrounded by comrades and the regimental family. A person could be out on the ground in Afghanistan, but a few weeks or months later they go back to their civilian job and are surrounded by people who have no
	understanding of what they have been through. I hope Ministers recognise that and will ensure that adequate provision is made.
	I would like the House to consider the words of Lord Healey, a former Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence who served as Royal Engineer in the north African campaign, the allied liberation of Sicily and the Italian campaign, and who was the military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio. He said:
	“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]

Angus Robertson: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who, with his experience, has much to bring to debates such as this, as well as the Chair of the Defence Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and I are members of the German caucus of the House of Commons, and I am pleased to follow her as the next Opposition speaker.
	I will concentrate on the forthcoming base review, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to get clarity on why the statement is not being made on Tuesday and on when we can expect it. The base review is directly related to defence personnel because it will concentrate on arrangements for the return of UK forces from Germany and confirm the configuration of basing arrangements—which units go where, which will change their role or close, and which will not return. That is what we expect to hear.
	We should put ourselves in the position of servicemen and women and their families, whether they are at a base in the UK, Germany or somewhere else. It is coming up to Christmas and they are expecting some clarity, but unfortunately they will not get it, which is a shame. It would be helpful for the Minister to offer clarity on the time scale.
	I want to focus on the impact of the basing review on service personnel and communities not only in the UK, but in Germany. I had the good fortune to be in Lower Saxony two weeks ago—I visited the area around the Bergen-Hohne training area—to meet the local authorities. An announcement on basing will have an impact on those authorities and the service and civilian communities around the training area. Speaking to the mayor of Bad Fallingbostel, Rainer Schmuck, reminded me of the experience we had in Moray recently—as part of the review of RAF bases, the local community had to plan for all kind of eventualities, which is incredibly destabilising. The basing announcement will have a tremendous impact on local authority budgets available in communities such as Bad Fallingbostel.

Kevan Jones: When the hon. Gentleman was in Germany, did he get any indication of whether the British Government have given two years’ notice of withdrawal, which they must give under the treaty? It is my understanding from a recent conversation that that has not yet been given, which is adding uncertainty about what will happen in Germany.

Angus Robertson: That is a good question. I met the premier of Lower Saxony, David McAllister, when I was in Germany. Because many of the decisions to be taken on amelioration of basing policy are effectively devolved functions—Ländersache—in Germany, decision makers such as David McAllister will have to work with local communities to help with the transition following any announcement on the basing review. Not one of my interlocutors both at Länder and community level was aware of any fixed timetable beyond what was said in previous statements. I was not told that there has been any clarity on what is likely to happen. I am sure the Minister does not disagree—he will no doubt say that clarity will be given as soon as possible—but I should underline the point that many hon. Members were given the impression that we would hear on Tuesday, but it now appears that we will not.
	For communities such as Bad Fallingbostel, the likelihood of the withdrawal of UK forces is significant. The role of the military in that part of the world goes back a long time, to the time of the Hanoverian redcoats. While they were tramping around parts of Scotland in the mid-18th century, they were also beginning to train on the Lüneburg Heath. The area has since become the most significant training area anywhere in Europe. A series of communities around the training area, whether in Bergen, Celle or Bad Fallingbostel itself, are exceptionally defence dependent. The impact of the basing review is significant not only in Lower Saxony; there are large-scale UK military presences in places such as Gütersloh and Paderborn. We should not lose sight of the fact that basing announcements will be relevant not only here, but in friendly nations such as Germany. It is important that people there have as much notice of any changes as we have here, and as quickly as possible.
	I have a couple of constituency matters to raise. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I represent one of the most defence-dependent constituencies in the UK—it contains RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss barracks. I stress to the Minister that I am hearing loud and clear that people want clarity on what will happen. There is uncertainty on the time scale for the transfer of the Typhoons from Leuchars and uncertainty in Leuchars about what will happen at the base. There is uncertainty in Angus about the Condor facility, which has been there for a very long time. If the Minister is not aware of that uncertainty, I strongly advise him to look closely at the trends at bases such as RAF Lossiemouth, where over and above compulsory and voluntary release we are seeing, in some very important trade groups and specialisations, people leaving in droves. That is due largely to uncertainty and, it has to be said, the success of the offshore oil and gas industry, which is offering tremendous opportunities to people starting a career in the civilian world.
	It would be useful to remind ourselves of the commitments given on basing, which I imagine will be the starting point for the Ministry of Defence. We do not have to look back very far, because the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), was explicit about the MOD’s plans for Scotland and I would like to remind the House what they are. He made a statement on defence transformation, and I will read the entire paragraph, because it is important:
	“Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up three of the five multi-role brigades. The other two MRBs will be based in the east of England, centred on Cottesmore, and in Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-west of Edinburgh. The MRB centred in Scotland will require a new training area, and positive discussions are being taken forward with the Scottish Government. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars, increasing the number of posts there from 1,200 to more than 1,300. Consequently, the Typhoon force due to be built up there will instead be built up at RAF Lossiemouth. Other MRB units will be moved into Glencorse, Caledonia, Albemarle barracks and eventually Arbroath, as we intend over time to bring the bulk of the Royal Marines together in the south-west.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2011; Vol. 531, c. 644-5.]
	That was outlined only last year, and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. A month later, he went on to give welcome clarity on numbers. When asked about the number of troops expected to return from Germany to Scotland, he said:
	“It is impossible to give an exact number, but I would imagine that between 6,500 and 7,000, or something of that order, of the 20,000 personnel we currently have in Germany will be coming back to the multi-role brigades in Scotland. The precise number and lay-down will be subject to the plans that the Army will bring forward in the months and years ahead, assuming of course that we have the agreement of the local authorities and the Scottish Government.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 655.]
	The UK Government obviously had the support of the Scottish Government in relation to the training area and any planning that would need to take place. That was a very clear and unambiguous commitment about the number of troops coming back from Germany to Scotland.
	All the mood music and noise we hear about the basing review makes me concerned that there will be a rowing back on those commitments only a year after they were made. The context is important and we should not lose sight of it. The former Secretary of State for Defence gave an important number when he told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 7 June 2011 that
	“between 2000 and 2010, the total reduction”—
	in service jobs—
	“was 11.6% but the reduction in Scotland was 27.9%. Over the decade 2000 to 2010 there were bigger reductions made in total personnel as a proportion than in other parts of the United Kingdom.”
	That is the inheritance with which we have found ourselves, and we have the commitment given by the former Secretary of State that one would try to make good some of the disproportionate cuts visited on defence in Scotland.

James Gray: rose —

Angus Robertson: I will of course give way to the chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces.

James Gray: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I am reluctant to bring a note of party political angst into what has been an extremely well informed and sensible debate so far. However, does he not agree that if his party’s great ambition of an independent Scotland was to happen, the amount of UK troops based in Scotland would be significantly lower?

Angus Robertson: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has an insight into the policy of future UK Governments wishing to withdraw troops from different parts of the UK. [Interruption.] Will Government Members let me answer? I have spoken for the majority of my comments about the presence of troops in other countries. It would be entirely possible—in fact, would it not be advantageous?—for Scottish troops to continue to train and operate in the area of England he represents, and I see no reason why troops from the rest of the UK could not continue to operate in Scotland.

Oliver Colvile: rose —

Angus Robertson: Forgive me, but I want to make some progress. I know that other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak.
	It is helpful, when talking about the level of commitment to the defence footprint in Scotland, to be reminded of the facts. Only four infantry battalions are based in Scotland. The Scottish-recruited infantry is now smaller than the infantry of the Irish Republic. Further to the infantry battalions, we have 39 Engineer Regiment in the newly renamed Kinloss barracks. It is important to note that manning levels there are 41% lower than the previous RAF establishment total and that no regular Army units are based in Scotland in the following and important categories: artillery, armour, signals, logistics, air corps, intelligence and special forces. There are no military training establishments in Scotland, which means no military academy, no engineering schools, no Army training regiments, no infantry training centres and no senior strategic military command.
	Even at this late stage, as the Government go through what they planned to announce in the basing review, which is exceptionally important to service personnel, I appeal to them not to go back on their commitments. Only a year ago, promises were made, and they should be kept. On a related note, the covenant has mentioned. I agree that everything should be done to deliver on it. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston pointed out, however, a large number of policy areas relating to the covenant are devolved. I observe that the Minister with responsibility for liaising with devolved Administrations has yet to speak to the Scottish Government since taking office. Having been asked for a meeting by the Scottish Government, he has yet to reply and make it happen.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why that might be the case.

Mark Francois: I am responsible for my diary, and I met Keith Brown, MSP, who is the transport and veterans Minister in the Scottish Government, some weeks ago. He is an ex-Royal Marine. It is fair to say that we had a constructive meeting. I have met the person in the Scottish Government responsible for the issue I am responsible for in the UK Government, so to try and imply that the UK Government are not in a dialogue with these people is incorrect.

Angus Robertson: “These people” being the Minister and the Scottish Government. I am pleased that the Minister has met Keith Brown; I am just pointing out
	that the UK MOD Minister responsible for relations with the devolved Administrations has not followed his lead. Perhaps he might encourage him to do so.
	I hope that the Government do not go back on their commitments at this late stage. I do not believe that any sovereign Scottish Government of any mainstream hue would manage defence in the way the UK Government have done, with disproportionate cuts to manpower, spending and basing. It is time to make better defence decisions in Scotland. The Scottish National party has committed to uniform personnel levels of 15,000 in Scotland—4,000 more than the 11,000 the UK currently has based there—but we will only be able to do that after a yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum. I look forward to that greatly.

James Gray: This has been a fascinating, well balanced and intelligent debate, covering a wide variety of topics. That includes the contribution from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), whom I am delighted to follow. He knows his stuff and has made a useful contribution to the all-party armed forces group over the years. I am grateful to him for that, although the possibility of he and I ever coming to a mutual understanding on what will happen to defence in the unlikely event of Scottish independence is perhaps rather remote. I am grateful to him for his remarks and his help over the years.
	I rather regret that the old parliamentary tradition of set-piece defence debates has been abolished—I seem to recall that at one time there were six, and then there were three, I think. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, has made representations on this subject to the Procedure Committee, on which I sit. Those debates have been replaced by a bid—in this case to be made by the Defence Committee—to the Backbench Business Committee for time. That means that defence, which ought to be the greatest and heaviest duty of the nation, has to compete with other more topical, interesting or amusing subjects for debating time. That is wrong. The Procedure Committee has considered whether time should be given for set-piece debates of this kind and has undertaken to keep the subject under review. It is always worth making the point that we ought to have set-piece debates during the year on defence, the Intelligence and Security Committee and one or two other equally grave and weighty subjects, which might not be quite as popular as some others.
	Today’s debate is about defence personnel. If defence of the realm is our greatest duty, it is right that paying our respects, thanks and homage to the people who make that possible—our armed forces—should be high on our list of priorities as a Parliament. I am therefore glad that in recent years we have had the opportunity to welcome back the two brigades a year that return from Afghanistan, as we did successfully the other day. I am grateful to Mr Speaker, Black Rod, the Serjeant at Arms and others who make those parades possible. They are terribly important in allowing Parliament to remember and be physically shown the people we have sent off to war. They are also terribly important from the brigades’ point of view.
	Let me quote from a letter I received this morning from the commander of 12th Mechanized Brigade, who came to Parliament last week:
	“The opportunity to celebrate and thank our young soldiers is rarely done in such a special way. Although respect for our soldiers is often talked about, the Parliamentary Parade and reception brought it firmly home to me that those sentiments are both genuine and heartfelt. Understanding this was particularly important for the more junior members on parade, as it is they who often faced the gravest danger and all too often it is our youngest who are forced to make the ultimate sacrifice. When that price is paid we know that they will never be forgotten. That response is often expressed by others as well. Last Monday confirmed that it is truly meant by those we serve.”
	Brigadier Chalmers’ letter is of great importance and brings it home to us that it is right and proper to pay our respects to those young soldiers. We should be aware that the things they do—as well as the discomforts they face, quite apart from the dangers—are things that very few people in this Chamber would ever contemplate doing themselves. We should take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to them for all they do.

Mark Francois: I want absolutely to echo from the Dispatch Box what my hon. Friend has just said. I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the all-party armed forces group in helping to organise the homecoming parades. I have seen for myself, on the faces of the troops, how much they appreciate those parades. I endorse the value of these exercises and celebrate the achievements of the men who came back to Parliament. [ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I ask the Minister to face the Chamber when he next stands at the Dispatch Box, so that we can hear what he says and so that he can see the Chair, just in case there needs to be an intervention from the Chair?

James Gray: The Minister was simply overcome by the passion of what he was saying that he forgot one or two of the conventions of the House. I am most grateful to him for his extremely kind remarks.
	The all-party armed forces group does a useful job. Many of its officers are in the Chamber today, and I am grateful to them for all the things they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is chairman of the Army section of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is chairman of that part of the group that looks after the Royal Marines.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend mentioned the all-party group, so will he say a few words about the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with which he and I have long been associated, as well as about the magnificent work of Sir Neil Thorne and the amazing effect the scheme has had of creating links between parliamentarians and members of the armed forces?

James Gray: My hon. Friend not only anticipates what I was about to say but rips the heart out of the central part of the comments that I was about to make. I shall come to that subject in a moment.
	The way in which the people of Britain respect our armed forces has changed over the years. It was unanimous after the second world war, as we knew what our armed forces had done for us through those years. At certain
	times since, there has been a similar increase in respect for them. There have also been periods, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when people’s knowledge of and respect for our armed forces has been significantly lower.
	I pay respect to my own constituents in Royal Wootton Bassett for the way in which they welcomed home the fallen soldiers for five or six years before handing back the duty to Brize Norton in the Prime Minister’s constituency. They spoke for the nation in paying their respects to the armed forces and the way in which they had served. They did so quietly, modestly and sensibly without pomp or ceremony. They simply stood in the high street getting wet and bowing their heads at the appropriate moment. They spoke for the people of Britain and the way in which we respect our armed forces.
	A similar transition in attitudes has occurred here in Parliament. After the retired brigadiers and soldiers who had served in the second world war had retired from this place some 20 or 30 years ago, I suspect that our knowledge of and respect for our armed forces declined significantly for a time. That would have been around the late ’60s and early ’70s, when not much was happening of a military nature and most Members of Parliament who had been soldiers, sailors or airmen had retired.

Oliver Colvile: We must not forget the commitment made by our troops in Northern Ireland during the late ’60s, ’70s and’80s. There were a lot of Royal Marines there, and I would like to pay tribute to them. Those events would certainly have kept people interested in what was going on in the military.

James Gray: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to speak up for the Royal Marines, and he is absolutely correct. I was not for one second suggesting that the House was silent on these matters during those years; I merely said that their prominence had declined somewhat at various times over the past 50 years.
	Into that relative desert of knowledge, awareness and understanding of our armed forces came the figure of Sir Neil Thorne—this is where my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did me a disservice a moment ago. Realising the shortage of information and awareness in the House, Sir Neil created the armed forces parliamentary scheme 25 years ago this year. Since then, he has run the scheme more or less single-handed. He has help from a variety of people, but he is the driving force behind it. The scheme has gone through all sorts of changes. When I joined it in 1997, it was extremely small, with one MP from each side of the House attached to each of the four services. This year, there are about 70 people involved, including MEPs, Clerks of the House, Members of the House of Lords and others.
	The work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Sir Neil has significantly increased the level of understanding and awareness of our armed forces and, in particular, of the work done by our boys and girls on the ground. A significant cadre of Members of Parliament now truly understand what happens on the ground. MPs are embedded for up to 22 days a year, perhaps wearing some kind of uniform, and they get intimately involved with activities of our armed forces on a variety
	of levels. That is central to the excellence of the understanding that the scheme has brought to this place.
	In that context, it is probably known around the House that there will be some changes coming to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Sir Neil has indicated that he would like to see changes, and the Secretary of State for Defence and Mr Speaker have joined him in that. The scheme will soon be re-established as a charitable trust under nine trustees, and we very much look forward to its continuation under the slightly new format.
	Two things are central. First, it seems to me essential that the armed forces parliamentary scheme should remain as it is, or very much like it is, for 25 or 50 years to come. It would be no good at all if we said right now, “That’s it. It has been great, but let’s say goodbye to it”. We must not do that—the armed forces parliamentary scheme plays a terribly important part in all our parliamentary debates. Secondly, there are all sorts of ways of doing this, but on this 25th anniversary of the scheme’s foundation, it is terribly important that we pay due respect to the fantastic contribution to the defence of realm and to our understanding of it that Sir Neil and his wife have made. He has done a great job; it is right that we should acknowledge it.

James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Neil has not only put in a large amount of his own time and considerable expertise but has invested a large amount of his own money into creating the scheme, and that it is has proved so successful that it has been copied in other countries around the world and has given rise to similar schemes for the police, for example?

James Gray: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: Sir Neil’s personal contribution in respect of time, money and, indeed, the excellent Lady Thorne has been significant. A similar scheme has been established in Australia and, as my right hon. Friend says, there is a similar police scheme in existence—in this Parliament, and who knows where else it might spread.
	On an occasion such as today’s when we are talking about defence personnel, it is right to pay our respects to and honour those people who do things that we in the Chamber could not contemplate doing, although one or two of us have done them—my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for example, who is not in his place at the moment. He has had the great advantage of having spent six months in Afghanistan, with 36 hours of contact, firing a light gun at the enemy. Very few Members of Parliament have achieved anything of that kind; I think we should pay our respects to my hon. Friend for that.
	It is right that we should make use of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, the all-party group for the armed forces and the welcome homes. We should also celebrate the respects paid to the armed forces down the streets of Royal Wootton Bassett—or now in Carterton in Oxfordshire. The people of the United Kingdom and the Members of this House understand what a great contribution our armed forces make to the defence of our realm. It is right that we should convert that understanding into visible signs of it; various organisations do that very well.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) on setting the scene so well, providing some focus for many of us. I thank other hon. Members who have also made significant, worthwhile and knowledgeable contributions to the debate, and those who will do the same in a few moments.
	I begin by saying that I stand in support of the tremendous sacrifice and work that our defence personnel carry out every day of their lives. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—there are others dotted around the Chamber—I have been privileged to see a lot of what our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women do around the world, and it makes me even more thankful for the job they do, away from friends and family on the front line or in training or when stationed elsewhere. We do not always know what they daily go through—I know membership of the armed forces parliamentary scheme provides some indication of it—in service to Queen and country. We know that because of them there is freedom and democracy not only in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but right across the world—and for that we are truly and immensely grateful.
	Many of us will have watched films on TV based on the wars in the past—from the American war of independence, the American civil war and on to the Great war—and we all have seen the march of troops head on into the firing line. That is not the way wars are fought today: warfare has evolved, and the British Army has evolved with it, remaining the foremost Army in the world. I believe that this must remain so. We have obligations worldwide in the security of our nation and in playing our part to help those who are oppressed or living in injustice. Those aims must continue to be fulfilled by whatever shape the new Army takes. The British Army and this Government have not been found wanting when it comes to promoting those good objectives—in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere across the world.
	I want to focus on the changes that will follow the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the draw-down from Germany, and to do so from a Northern Ireland perspective. I want to reflect on what the Army expects to look like then, and, more important, on Northern Ireland’s role in the 2020 British Army.
	Northern Ireland has a rich military history. Although we are such a small part of the United Kingdom, our incredible level of military service—which is backed up by the figures—demonstrates that we are intrinsic to the make-up of the greatness of that great nation. It is clear from the fact that Northern Ireland contains only 3% of the United Kingdom’s population but provides 20% of the reserve forces on active service that we more than play our part. We have much to offer in Northern Ireland as a major part of the evolution of the armed forces.

Bob Stewart: I understand that more Victoria Crosses have been awarded to Irishmen than to the English, the Scots and the Welsh put together. I congratulate the Irish on that.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman’s facts are absolutely correct. I thank him for what he has said. Let me also take the opportunity to thank him for the immense
	contribution that he has made in his former role as a soldier, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world, and in particular for the part that he played, as an officer in his regiment, in the peace that we now have in Northern Ireland. His contribution is not often mentioned, and I wanted to put it on the record.
	By tradition, we in Northern Ireland have never had to be conscripted to provide service personnel. We go above and beyond our duty, and that should be acknowledged and respected. Although in many instances the troubles in Northern Ireland highlighted segregation, the Army and the cadets now recruit from all sectors of the community. I want to stress to the Minister the importance of our cadets and reserve forces to community involvement and community-building. The Army works hard in those different parts of the community to show people what a great career can be enjoyed in the forces.
	Our cadet force recruitment has been second to none, crossing the religious and political divides. The highest levels of recruitment are from areas that are traditionally less supportive of the military—Strabane, Londonderry, Limavady and Enniskillen. The importance of the cadet forces to our society cannot be sufficiently underlined. Northern Ireland, in my view, has the most rationalised and efficient cadets in the United Kingdom. We develop a higher proportion of our soldiers and sailors on operations than any other region, and we have the most and the best recruitment in the UK.
	The main link between the Ministry of Defence and the communities in Northern Ireland is first through the cadets and secondly through the reserves. The success story lies in the fact that people from what are, perhaps, the traditionally less supportive areas are now joining the cadets in rising numbers. The position must be enhanced in the future, and that demands a commitment from the Ministry of Defence: cadets today, reserves and a full-time Army tomorrow.
	I believe that there is much scope for Northern Ireland to house and facilitate the training of troops in buildings that are already owned and operated by the British Army. I suggest that Thiepval barracks in Lisburn, which currently houses the 38th Brigade, should be retained and enhanced. The draw-down from Germany will provide an opportunity for that to be done. The garrison at Ballykinler and Palace barracks in Holywood provide accommodation and training facilities that are ready and waiting to be fully utilised—and, of course, we must not forget the facilities at Aldergrove, from which forces have already withdrawn. Again, the draw-down from Germany will provide scope for development.
	Those buildings are already intrinsic parts of the community. Officers in the barracks ensure that there is co-operation with young people, and with the community as a whole. It makes a great deal of sense to me—and, I know, to other Northern Ireland Members, who unfortunately are not present today—for facilities that are already available to be part of the 2020 plan for the Army, and I ask the MOD to give that serious consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
	It is essential for the plan for the reserve forces to constitute 30% of Army numbers by 2018 to be realised through the use of the many troops that are currently trained and ready to go. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the opportunity—along with others, including the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—to visit our base in Cyprus, and to note
	the strategic importance of Cyprus in a very uncertain middle east. We need to be able to call upon fully trained and equipped personnel at any time, and I believe the reserves are a way to achieve that. Although these men and women are not in the Army full-time, they are trained to a very high standard. We must ensure the strength of the reserves does not diminish. We have built up expertise, and it should be utilised as needed. The reserves should form the foundation for the proposed changes, and the Northern Ireland reserve members are an important part of them. Given that, the Ministry of Defence must give commitments on Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and its role in respect of the armed forces.
	Everywhere I go in the world, I always come across serving personnel from Northern Ireland with links to my constituency. Fellow members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme have observed that, and they have expressed amazement that there are always such connections. From Afghanistan to Canada, and from Kenya to the Falklands to Cyprus, there is always a Northern Ireland link, which illustrates the commitment of people in Northern Ireland to Queen and country and the principles of freedom and democracy.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman talks of a specific Northern Ireland perspective, and he is no doubt aware that recently the service chiefs met representatives of the political parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the first time. His colleague, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), was present as was the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and the discussions were valuable. Does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that they should be continued?

Jim Shannon: I entirely agree, and I would like the Minister to comment on that in his concluding remarks. The Northern Ireland link is clear and necessary.
	I want to touch upon the importance of the Cyprus base. Cyprus has become a point of interest not only for Russia, but for China, and the strategic importance of Cyprus is underlined yet again by the fact that China wants to make Cyprus the base for its European operations. That is a small part of a bigger story.
	Our Cyprus base provides training for soldiers going to Afghanistan and for officers from Sandhurst, and it is essential that it is retained after any shake-up. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) mentioned soldiers coming home having a chance to unwind in Cyprus. It is a tremendous base and it has a major role to play in helping soldiers unwind from combat stress before going home.
	In these times of economic uncertainty, people are having to look outside the normal comfort zones to find work. There is therefore a rise in Army recruitment everywhere, but especially among nationalists, which speaks volumes about how the younger generation see themselves. When the main town in my constituency, Newtownards, celebrated the homecoming of the Irish Guards, one soldier remarked to me that when they were told that some in Belfast did not want them to parade there, they were bemused as some members of their regiment were Catholics and Belfast was their hometown. I was told that there was no real sense of
	religion among the troops, and I know that to be the case: those who serve in the British Army are brothers, full stop.
	I am pleased that recruitment is up, especially as many young people will find not simply a pay packet but a vocation for life. That feature must be encouraged in any changes in the armed forces. I am all for the armed forces changing, and I ask the Minister to say something about the possibility of using the Northern Ireland bases to facilitate the draw-down from Germany. I am today putting down the mark for Northern Ireland and for her to play a major role in the future of the armed forces in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
	Captain Wilfred Spender of the Ulster Division’s HQ staff was quoted in the press as saying after the battle of the Somme:
	“I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world. The Ulster Division has lost more than half the men who attacked and, in doing so, has sacrificed itself for the Empire which has treated them none too well. Their devotion, which no doubt has helped the advance elsewhere, deserved the gratitude of the British Empire. It is due to the memory of these brave fellows that their beloved Province shall be fairly treated.”
	Can anything different be said of our troops today, and can the response from the MOD be any different?

Bob Stewart: Thirty years ago tonight, at eight minutes past 11, a massive explosion rocked my house. At the time, I was a major commanding A Company, 1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment. I rang the guardroom, because I was the duty field officer, and was told, “We think the Droppin’ Well—the disco has been blown up.” I jumped into my car and was there within a minute. There was blackness where the Droppin’ Well was meant to be—everything else was in light—and there was silence. I took a torch from my car and went into what was left of the building. The first person I met was a soldier who was only 18. He had a huge stomach and he was crying—not crying like a baby, but moaning. He was Private Mark Young, one of my youngest soldiers. I said to him, “You’ll be all right. You’ll live. Just stay there.” He had a broken back, although I did not know it.
	I went further on into the building and there I found another soldier, Private Harthern, who said, “Come over here, sir. Through that gap.” I looked through the gap and saw a girl called Tina Collins underneath the concrete. She was the wife of my clerk. She said, “I think Clinton isn’t moving sir.” I said, “Don’t call me sir, it doesn’t matter. You’ve got to stay there, Tina.” I left Private Harthern with her. Lance Corporal Clinton Collins had been promoted by me that day. He and I had played squash until about 8 o’clock that night. I had taken him home and he had said, “In celebration, sir, I am taking Tina out for a drink.” But at eight minutes past 11 he was dead.
	I went on, and a boy stood up and asked me whether I was a doctor. I looked like a doctor—I was wearing a coat. I said, “No, I am not a doctor.” He said, “She needs a doctor.” I looked down and saw a girl lying on the ground, entirely mashed—legs gone, arm a wreck. I knelt down beside her and said, “Are you all right?” She said, “I think so.” I said, “Oh.” She said, “What’s
	happened?” I said, “There’s been a bomb, darling.” She said, “Am I hurt?” I said, “Quite a bit.” She said, “Am I badly hurt?” I said, “Yes, you are.” She said, “Am I going to die?” I said, “Yes.” She said, “Will you hold me?” And I did. Of course, this young girl died. She died in a state of grace. She died fully conscious that she was dying. And, thankfully, she died with no pain.
	I then discovered that four of my soldiers who had been round a table were also hit. The first was dead and, rather like a pack of cards, after the first one had gone down the next one, who was on top of him, died in two hours and the third one died in three hours. The fourth, Lance Corporal William Bell, was trapped. I spoke to William Bell and eventually, when the doctors arrived, they said that they would have to cut his legs off because it had been four hours and the rule of thumb was that gangrene sets in in four hours. I said to him, “Corporal Bell, we are going to have to take your legs off.” He said, “One hell of a way to get out of the cross-country run, isn’t it, sir? No legs—good excuse for the regimental sergeant major.” He said it rather more in soldiers’ language than that, but bearing in mind that we are in the Chamber of the House of Commons I have modified the language.
	It was a hell of a night. Things got worse, of course, because in the morning I was ordered by the commanding officer to identify my soldiers. That took four hours in Altnagelvin hospital morgue. In total, I had six men killed and more than 30 wounded. Eleven soldiers died that night and six civilians, three of them girls and all of them young. Today is the 30th anniversary of Ballykelly. I have the honour and privilege to be going there this weekend to remember those people.
	Here is the point—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is not in her seat, but she has already made it: we have a responsibility to look after people into the future. It is very easy to concentrate on just the Afghanistan casualties or, indeed, the Iraq casualties, but we have had a lot of casualties in the armed forces and among our civilian population over the years, particularly during the troubles in Northern Ireland, where I lost far more men than anywhere else. In a way, it is understandable that we forget that we have lost so many people because we are concentrating on seeing our brave men and women coming back from Afghanistan.
	Some people might look and see the people who have been hurt in previous wars, perhaps in a wheelchair or something like that, and say that they are a relic of the past. They probably do not say that, but they might think it. Those people might well be a relic of the past, but they live in the past. It is the past that has condemned their future. After all, Mark Young is only 48 and Lance Corporal William Bell cannot be more than 50, so we have a responsibility to them. I am using them as examples, because many more soldiers require to be looked after. We as a Parliament and we as a people are doing great things for our servicemen and servicewomen who are hurt now. As we have heard this afternoon, they get treatment that is world-beating.
	I finish by saying this: remember that we also have men and women from previous conflicts who require world-beating care for the rest of their lives.

Heidi Alexander: I feel quite inadequate to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He and I are both Members of Parliament representing south-east London constituencies. It would probably be fair to say that we have very different political views, but after listening to the speech that he has just made, some of those political views become somewhat irrelevant, given what he said about his own experience in the armed forces, and what he and many others who serve in the Army, the RAF and the Navy see with their own eyes. I feel very honoured and privileged to have listened to the speech that he gave.
	I shall make a brief contribution today. We have heard other speakers talk about important global issues relating to our defence forces, ranging from the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and their safety during that process to important aspects of the role of our defence forces in light of Britain’s emerging position in the world. I want to raise a specific issue about officers who are currently serving in our armed forces.
	One of my constituents, Jayne Bullock, came to visit me a couple of months ago because her brother, who is a serving officer in the Army, had been issued with a redundancy notice earlier this year. He was given his redundancy date, which was only days before his immediate pension point. I understand that he will no longer be eligible to receive his pension immediately upon his redundancy, and that this represents a significant financial loss to him and his family. I understand that of the redundancy notices that were issued this summer, that situation affects about 70 or 80 serving officers.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham the vital job that such officers do in our armed forces. The responsibility that goes with being an officer in our Army cannot be underestimated. They have to deal with situations such as that which the hon. Gentleman described. It is only right that those officers are given the pension that they are due. I believe that the compensation that has been arranged for them in some form of lump sum falls far short of what they would have received, had they got their pension at their immediate pension point.
	Will the Minister, in his concluding remarks, explain to hon. Members what he plans to do about this problem in the future? Although it affects a certain number of people who received their redundancy notices this summer, the problem will continue as there will be further tranches of redundancies. Would it be possible not to make redundant those people who are less then 12 months away from their immediate pension point?
	We are all here today speaking highly of our armed forces, but we need more than warm words. We need to put our money where our mouth is. Will the Minister look into the issues raised by the Pension Justice for Troops campaign that Jayne Bullock has established, and look at what else might be possible in respect of providing those individuals with appropriate compensation? I hope that if not today, then at some point in the future, he will be able to offer those service personnel some good news.

Julian Lewis: I think that I speak for everyone present when I say that long after everything else that is said in this debate has been forgotten, everyone here today will remember the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is easy to see from the bravery with which he recounted his experiences in Northern Ireland those qualities of character and courage that led to him being decorated as he was in other combat theatres.
	Today we are talking primarily about defence personnel issues, but I know that you will allow a small degree of latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker. Therefore, before referring to the two main areas on which I wish to concentrate, I will make a couple of slightly wider points of gentle disagreement. I have a gentle disagreement with the Government on the idea that it is adequate for a country with United Kingdom’s interests to spend 2% or 2.1% of GDP on defence. It is simply not enough as a proportion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said, if we can spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid, we should be spending more than 2% or 2.1% on defence.
	I have a very gentle disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, who said that he now feels that it was right to name a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan because he can see the beneficial effects that it has had on the Afghan Government and Afghan forces in getting their act together. It is true that there has been a beneficial effect; there was always going to be. The effect we have to worry about is that which it will have on the enemy. They now know when we are going and that all they have to do is sit on their hands for long enough or, even worse, redouble their efforts to damage us in the run-up to our scheduled departure, in order to be able to claim that they drove us out of the country. Although I accept that there are some advantages in naming a departure date, I do not accept that it was the right thing to do.
	I will now turn to what I should have started with, defence personnel, which is the subject of the debate. I wish to concentrate on two areas, one general and one specific. The general area relates to veterans and the conditions they face on leaving the armed forces. In order to do that, I will draw heavily on comments made to me by Dr Hugh Milroy, the charismatic chief executive officer of one of the oldest and most respected welfare organisations, Veterans Aid, which is based in Victoria. It is so long in the tooth that if one looks at its website, one will find that its parent organisation, which was set up following the first world war, has a film clip featuring the late Ralph Richardson showing in fictional form the sorts of employment problems faced by someone coming back from that terrible conflict and the way in which voluntary organisations were necessary to give them a chance of resuming normal life. Indeed, the number of injured veterans was so large following that terrible war that there was inevitably a feeling of disillusionment about the way they were treated by a grateful country after 1918.
	We have published the military covenant, and it has quite a bit to say about housing. I will read a couple of brief extracts. The covenant says that serving personnel
	“should have priority status in applying for Government-sponsored affordable housing schemes, and Service leaders should retain this status for a period after discharge.”
	It also says:
	“Members of the Armed Forces Community should have the same access to social housing and other housing schemes as any other citizen, and not be disadvantaged in that respect by the requirement for mobility whilst in Service.”
	The problem that arises is what a local authority does if it has no housing available and all it has is a waiting list.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that situation is exacerbated many times over if the local authority happens to have a major garrison within its borders?

Julian Lewis: I not only agree with the hon. Gentleman but pay tribute to him. I have listened year in, year out while he has raised this subject consistently in debate after debate. He is a champion of service personnel in relation to housing matters.
	I know something about this problem because I was recently approached in connection with the situation in the New Forest, a large part of which is protected, with very little available in the way of new housing. What happens if there is only a waiting list to offer to people? Should returning service personnel jump to the head of that waiting list over other people who have been on it for a considerable period? Dr Milroy says that his charity has seen many cases where individuals have taken a copy of the charter to the local authority,
	“and the LA has laughed.”
	He says that the real problem is that
	“if there are no available houses it is a pointless exercise. Until the Govt put resource behind this I can’t see things changing.”
	Above all, he draws attention to the fact that we are heading for a “huge redundancy programme” that will result in a large increase in the numbers of ex- servicemen returning to civilian lives. Phrases such as “the emperor’s new clothes” feature in his remarks about the covenant, because, as he says, it is a fine idea but it will not change the situation unless backed by resources.

Penny Mordaunt: Given the challenges with service accommodation and some of the estates that we have, does my hon. Friend agree that there might be opportunities to introduce a right-to-buy scheme for armed forces families?

Julian Lewis: Yes, absolutely. I believe that the Government are working on schemes that will make it possible for ex-service personnel to get their foot on the housing ladder. I look forward to what I hope will be positive recommendations by the Minister on this subject.

Kevan Jones: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that I started that scheme in the last four months of my time as veterans Minister, and the take-up showed that it was very popular.

Julian Lewis: I am delighted that there appears to be consensus across the House. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been in post a little earlier than he was, he would have started the scheme a little earlier in Labour’s long period in office.
	On a more positive note, Dr Milroy and his organisation recently had a considerable success when the Government acknowledged and accepted their campaign saying that minor military disciplinary offences should no longer be allowed to count against Commonwealth soldiers who, after their period of service to this country, often in dangerous theatres, were applying for British residency and British citizenship. It was a massive injustice that issues that would normally be regarded in civilian life as minor infractions and not criminal in any way were being used by, I believe, the UK Border Agency, against the applications of individual Commonwealth servicemen or ex-servicemen to become British citizens. I am glad that Hugh Milroy and Veterans Aid mounted a successful, high-profile campaign and that the Government listened to them.
	Finally, I hope that the Government will be in similar listening mode with regard to a very high-profile case—I think I was the first MP to raise it on the Floor of the House—namely that of Special Air Service Sergeant Danny Nightingale. I am aware that the case is going to appeal on the question of conviction, so I will not stray into the issue of whether that appeal should succeed. I note with great pleasure that the appeal against sentence was successful and I was privileged to be present in the court. I thought it was absolutely grotesque to see a man of Sergeant Nightingale’s character and record in the barred dock of the court, but it was a great result that his sentence was reduced and suspended. He should never have been in custody in the first place.
	The only point I wish to make is that Ministers should bear in mind that if the appeal is successful—I say if—the question will arise of whether there should be a retrial. I hope that, if the appeal against conviction is successful, Ministers will have the good sense to say that enough is enough and to make that opinion clear.
	My mind goes back to one of the first service personnel campaigns that I was involved in when I came to this House in the late 1990s, namely the case of the two RAF Chinook pilots who were killed when their helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre. That case dragged on and on, and for no good purpose. Lord Chalfont and others in the House of Lords, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in this House, and, I would like to think, many of us—in my case on the Back Benches and later on the then Opposition Front Bench, where I held a role similar to that held today by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—pressed the case continuously. Our argument was that, given that the rules were changed after the crash so that no future pilots who were killed in a crash could ever be blamed in the way that they had been blamed, it was nonsensical and unfair that those whose case had led to the change in the rules should not benefit from it.
	The same situation could well arise with Sergeant Nightingale. The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he is considering—I hope that he will continue to consider it and, indeed, go ahead with it—an amnesty for other service personnel who have brought back and are holding on to, as trophies, weapons that should not still be in their possession. It would be absurd for the person whose trial had led to the
	amnesty—we should also remember that an amnesty has already been held locally, which led to other members of the SAS handing in a lot of unauthorised weapons—not to be given the benefit of the fact that an amnesty was now available for everyone else.
	I will close as I began by saying that anything that any of us has to say pales into minor significance compared with what we heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham. It was a privilege to be here during his speech.

Bob Russell: We are rightly praising members of Her Majesty’s armed forces for all that they do for our country. Representing the garrison town of Colchester, the home of 16 Air Assault Brigade, this debate perhaps has an added significance for me, because the Army is such an important part of the life of my constituency and the surrounding area. Colchester is proud to be a garrison town, proud of its Army—regulars and reservists—and delighted that it brings so much benefit to the local economy.
	However, we often do not express our appreciation for the army of civilians without whom the Army could not operate. I hope to make amends for that today. There are in excess of 1,000 jobs in Colchester that exist, directly or indirectly, because the Army is garrisoned in the town. Behind the 3,220 military personnel serving with HM armed forces at Britain’s most modern barracks, there is a civilian army of 280 Ministry of Defence civil servants. About 500 people are employed through the private finance initiative project under which the barracks was built a few years ago. There are also civilians who work for the Defence Support Group, which repairs and maintains a wide range of Army vehicles.
	The civilian work force at Merville barracks and within the Army housing areas include those involved in clerical, cleaning and catering work, property and grounds maintenance, housing support, welfare, retail outlets and the messes—which have my personal vote of approval, along with the Musket club—and security support. The latter are civilians, but they are civilians in uniform.
	In praising those who serve with the Ministry of Defence Police and Guarding Agency, I challenge the Minister to come clean this afternoon and say precisely what is the future of the Ministry of Defence police and the Ministry of Defence guard service? The number of MOD police officers covering the Colchester garrison was cut during the period of the last Labour Government from 33 to just three. Where once there was an MOD police presence throughout the Army housing areas, which have an estimated 3,000 dependants, wives and children, today the already over-stretched Essex constabulary has had the Army estates added to its workload. Army families tell me that the peace of mind that they once had is gone.
	The lifestyle of ethos and discipline that is part of everyday Army life is not necessarily shared by all the civilians who now occupy the former Army houses that were privatised by the last Conservative Government. The current owner, Annington Homes, has made a financial killing, to the detriment of the public purse, through sell-ons and by building new houses on former Army land, which they bought for virtually nothing.
	I urge the coalition Government to reverse Labour’s cuts in the MOD police numbers at the Colchester garrison and to resist any moves to reduce, or close completely, the MOD guard service. From personal experience, I know that the guards provide a level of maturity and knowledge of security that would be lost if they were replaced on the gate by, for example, young soldiers or even a private security firm such as G4S. Let us keep the expertise and knowledge that the Ministry of Defence guard service provides.
	On a national perspective, will the Minister accept that further cuts to the MOD police would put at risk the security of important and strategic national assets for which the MOD police provide defensive armed policing as required? MOD police officers, unlike G4S for example, are authorised to carry arms outside the wire and have full constabulary powers, and the organisation has an investigative capability with its own criminal investigation department. Reducing the number of MOD police officers from 3,500 to about 2,600, as set out in the strategic defence and security review, is pure folly. National security interests must come before such cuts.
	I referred briefly to the Defence Support Group, which in my youth was known as the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops and a few years ago as the Army Base Repair Organisation. The name may have changed, but its professionalism at the Colchester site is worthy of the highest praise. I invite the Minister to pay a visit. Last month in the Colchester business awards, it came first in the class for active and sustainable travel. It has seen cycling to work rise from 7% to 16% in the past two years. It has six pool bikes that are well used, including by senior management, for business visits around the far-flung Colchester garrison area. How many pool bikes are there at the Ministry of Defence offices in Whitehall?
	It is right that the families of our military personnel should also be praised. The establishment over the past year or so of the military wives choirs—there are now more than 50—has been a success story that has resonated with the British people, which gives an indication of the nation’s appreciation. The work of the inspirational Gareth Malone, through his programme on BBC television, has led to a national movement under the Military Wives Choirs Foundation, which was established by the military charity SSAFA Forces Help. This time last year, the original choir had just performed at the Royal British Legion festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert hall and was on its way to the top of the charts at Christmas.
	Three of the choirs have performed in the House of Commons, most recently on 7 November when the Colchester military wives choir sang in the atrium of Portcullis House. Bookings have flooded in, and next Thursday evening it will perform a joint concert with the band of the Parachute Regiment at St Botolph’s church in Colchester. I will be there.
	I am so proud of the Colchester choir. Travelling costs for its visit to Westminster were funded by the Colchester-based company Call Assist—an example of how local businesses support soldiers and their families in the same way as the community supports our soldiers. We witness that every Remembrance day when 3,000 people attend commemorations at the Colchester war memorial,
	with a march along the high street before and afterwards. We remember those who died in past conflicts as well as more recent deaths in Afghanistan.
	I take this opportunity to thank the Royal British Legion, ABF—the soldiers’ charity, formerly known as the Army Benevolent Fund—Help for Heroes, and other military and service charities for the sterling work they do to help locally and nationally. I also wish to express my appreciation to Veterans Aid and Combat Stress for the special support they provide to former military personnel who have hit particularly personal difficult times.
	I am delighted that the Colchester military festival will return next year, and I am confident that it will attract some 20,000 members of the public as it did in the past. It is a fantastic showcase for the Army and I invite as many Defence Ministers as possible—and other hon. Members—to come and share the experience, which I am confident is without equal in the UK.
	Before I make my final point, I will repeat what I said previously. Families of our military personnel deserve a higher quality and condition of family housing than is often the case. Maintenance and modernisation programmes must not be delayed. That is a false economy as well as being damaging to the morale of those who live in such poor conditions.
	Having paid tribute to our armed forces through personal experience and knowledge of the wider Army family in my constituency, participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and membership of the Defence Committee, I must tell the Minister—quite bluntly—that cutting the size of Her Majesty’s armed forces is not in the national interest. He may remember that earlier this year I challenged the Prime Minister on that very point. The first duty of any Government is to defend the national interest at home and overseas. For that to be achieved, we must have armed forces to deal with situations that might arise. Reducing the size of the Army to its lowest level in 200 years is not in the national interest, and I will continue to argue that point.

Oliver Colvile: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. It is a privilege to speak for two reasons. First, we have today the publication of the first ever armed forces covenant annual report, which I will read with interest when I eventually get down to Devon tonight. Secondly, I have the enormous privilege to represent Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport which, as hon. Members may know, is the home of 3 Commando Brigade, which saw action in Afghanistan a couple of years ago.
	My constituency also contains the Haslar unit that deals with members of the armed services who have lost limbs and need assistance. It does an incredibly good job. My constituency and that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) contain HMS Heroes, which looks after the children of service families and does a very good job. I share half of the original military wives choir with the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), and I am delighted that this
	time last year I was able to play a small part in ensuring that VAT from the choir’s No. 1 hit, “Wherever you are”, was given to the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. I am grateful that the Government did so much on that.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for making his visit later this weekend. Will he take our best wishes and thanks to family members who lost their loved ones in that appalling atrocity 30 years ago to the day? Only too often, we tend to forget the families.
	I want to talk about mental health, housing and reservists. This year, national armed forces day took place in Plymouth. It was used as an opportunity by the local authority to sign its community covenant, which is a useful thing. The covenant demonstrates that the town, which is one of the principal naval garrison towns in the country, the local authority and the whole community are keen to ensure that we thank those who serve. There is an enormous amount of emotional support for our armed services, especially our Royal Marines and Royal Navy, and we need to ensure that it continues.
	We must not forget the partners and children of our armoured service personnel. They bear the brunt of dealing with the more complex issues. In many cases, they are the one group of people who immediately see that their husbands, wives or partners are suffering from mental health issues. They deal with it. Only when it becomes apparent can commanding officers pick up on it. When service personnel are called away on deployment, their partners—for want of a better expression—have to keep their families together and manage the household, including paying the bills and those kinds of things. They must also ensure that service personnel wind down and settle back when they return from deployment.
	That can be difficult. I have told this story before, but I will tell it again because it is an important one. The reservists were on exercises and training on Woodbury common, which is in the constituency of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire). I asked one of them how he was getting on. He said, “Fine, but when I came back from Afghanistan and I went to my wife and my family home up in Aylesbury”—he lived away from his base—“she said, ‘Don’t start talking to me about all the problems you’ve got. I’ve had a horrendous day. I’ve answered 300 e-mails today.’” Perhaps she works for a Member of Parliament, but he said to her, “I’ve was under mortar fire for eight hours during my time in Afghanistan.”
	The reservist found it difficult to communicate to his wife on the subject, and he also had difficulty speaking to his civilian mates. Only fellow Royal Marines were able to take on board what he said and had that common interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) had similar experiences when he came back from deployment. We must ensure that we continue to work very hard on delivering our mental health strategy in line with “Fighting Fit”, which was produced by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—what a good job he did!
	However, we have more to do. We must ensure that our reservists can access much needed support. If we do not, we are letting people down. During my visit to HMS Haslar, I was told by the Royal Marines that they had done an enormous amount of work on trauma risk management, or TRiM. I was impressed, although my hon. Friends who speak about the Army might have a different view. We had a breakfast in Parliament, where the Royal Marines described the professional job they do to help some of their younger people through combat stress—I suspect it was called shell shock or similar in my grandfather’s day.
	On my visit to HMS Haslar, I heard about Q fever, an illness that some end up having, and how difficult people find it to access support and funding. I am delighted to read in the report on the covenant that the Government have taken on board the Care Quality Commission’s report, to establish a unified Ministry of Defence primary health care. I hope GPs will be given training so they understand what is going on, especially in places such as Plymouth, to which many servicemen and women return. Some GPs do not have the training in mental health that they need.
	On housing, before I was elected to this place I came across an officer in the Coldstream Guards who told me that during his deployment—in Iraq, I think—he had called his wife for a 45-minute conversation. The conversation began with his wife spending a good 30 minutes talking about how a leak in the roof had totally ruined the sofa that they had bought on credit, and that left him only 15 minutes to talk about their children and parents. We have to ensure that we look after accommodation, and the Government have done well to make significant changes. In 2008, a third of Navy personnel said they were satisfied with the quality of housing, leaving two thirds who were not. Under-25s and single people were also unhappy with their housing. We need to ensure that housing is modernised, and I would welcome an extension of the right-to-buy scheme for military personnel.
	My final point is about reservists. From conversations I have had with Royal Marines, I know that they are concerned about training and whether they will be deployed as a unit or individually. If we are going to reduce our regular forces and make greater use of our reservists, it is important that they are given proper training and decompression activity when they come back. Let me make this final point, too. Reservists do not necessarily live on camp; they often live elsewhere, and so their opportunity to talk to their wives or fellow reservists is limited. We need to ensure that our reservists are better informed.
	Finally, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on how important it is that as a country we are not sea blind.
	My final point—[ Laughter ]—concerns the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), so I am delighted that he is back in the Chamber. I wonder whether he and the Scottish National party are sending a confusing message. They want services in Scotland, but if it gains independence they want to get rid of the submarines and the naval bases.

Nigel Evans: Well, if there is not a fifth final point, I will call Penny Mordaunt.

Penny Mordaunt: I was tempted to say “Finally”, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a member of the reserve forces.
	It is appropriate that I started today in Portsmouth at the rededication service of the Falklands memorial plantation on Portsdown hill. It is right that we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, acknowledge the courage and professionalism of all those involved in securing that victory and celebrate their legacy. We should do the same for our armed forces in Afghanistan. I know that not all Members agree with our mission in Afghanistan, but, whether we are pro or anti, we must acknowledge not only the skills, courage and professionalism of our armed forces, but their achievements —and not only those achievements in the area of our own national security.
	I was in Afghanistan last week with the Defence Committee. While in Lashkar Gah, we had the privilege of meeting members of the provincial peace council. We saw a town that had new schools, including girls’ schools, and whose new governor was in India at a cotton expo, and around us were car lots, wedding shops and all sorts of businesses springing up. We were patting them on the back for their remarkable achievements, but their response was clear. They said, “These achievements are not ours. They are the achievement of your brave armed forces.” They have created the security, space and stability for those lasting changes to occur. I wonder whether, if we added up everything we all might achieve in our long—in my case short—political careers, it would ever come close to the achievement of our troops out there.
	Our troops have achieved something else. This is a subtler point. The presence of such professional, diverse and well respected forces has changed for ever the view of the Afghan people of what it means to wear a uniform. When we were out there, President Karzai said that no rich men’s sons were in the Afghan army, but I think that will change because of the presence of our armed forces. We need to talk about that, especially as transition takes place.
	We also need to tell our troops that. While I was in Lashkar Gah, I visited a forward operating base called Sparta. Speaking to Afghans in the neighbouring base, I learned that the further away they were from centres of communication in Kabul and Bastion, the less they knew about the achievements being made. We should be putting those achievements on paper-based communications to our troops, perhaps even on their daily or weekly orders. I raised that point before I left the country, and I hope that the Minister will take it up. I can give him a head start: I think that Radio 1 is broadcasting from Afghanistan next week. I hope he will phone up and give a long list of our armed forces’ achievements.
	That leads me on to communications. This is a time of immense change for our armed forces, and there are complex personnel issues that have to be dealt with. The MOD has an extremely good internal communications plan, but it is no good if that information cannot be accessed in a timely fashion. There is a problem with people being able to access joint personnel administration, because there are too few secure computer terminals in units. That issue has been raised many times with me,
	and I am not just talking about the reserves. Surprisingly, not everyone has a personal e-mail account—I met several sergeant-majors in Bastion who did not have one—so it is difficult to get information to people quickly. If we want our armed forces to respond to consultation, especially if they are on JPA, we must do better.
	The other communications issue I wish to touch on is a localised one to do with Afghanistan and Camp Bastion in particular. During Operation Herrick 9, our armed forces had free access to the internet, and although they have some access now, it is limited and they have to pay $90 a month to access wider broadband services, such as those that allow them to Skype their family. I raised this issue before I left the country. It is being looked into, but I am sure the Minister will want to know what can be done, especially as transition continues and welfare issues get pared down, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) pointed out. Being able to Skype back home will become even more important as troops pull out. I hope the Minister takes that on board.

Jack Lopresti: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry; I am very short on time.
	On welfare services, I pay tribute to all who support and honour our armed forces, particularly—I hope hon. Members forgive me; I have my Portsmouth hat on—the Naval Families Federation and the Royal Navy and Royal Marines charities, which do an amazing job. I want to raise with the Minister again the Service Complaints Commissioner. The role needs to become an ombudsman. We need to review the rules that categorise a complaint as an employee grievance—if the person making a complaint is killed in action, it is dropped and not pursued. I urge the Minister to make best use of Dr Susan Atkins while she is still in post. She has done a tremendous job. He should encourage her to do the review that she wants to do before she goes.
	I pay tribute to our armed forces. We do not talk about them enough in this place—actually, we never could—but at least we have had the opportunity to do that today.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this afternoon’s debate. Let me put on record everyone’s thanks and tributes to the members of our armed forces and their families, who are an integral part of the defence of our country. I also agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) about the army of civil servants and civil contractors, without whose support we could not deploy forces.
	There have been 11 very good contributions to today’s debate. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire talked about Afghanistan. I agree that the deadline has focused minds in Afghanistan; my concern is about what role UK armed forces will play post-2014. There is a naive assumption that a training role will be without its dangers, but the people performing training roles with the embedded teams in Iraq were in harm’s way. We need clarification from the Government on that
	before 2014, because people will be in harm’s way. We also need to know what our armed forces’ footprint will be in Afghanistan post-2014.
	The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the Service Complaints Commissioner, as did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). This was a tremendous success for the Defence Committee, following its report on the duty of care in the last Parliament, although I agree with the hon. Lady that the next step needs to be some type of ombudsman—a proposal that was in the original report to give the post teeth. I, too, pay tribute to the Service Complaints Commissioner, who has done a first-rate job in not only highlighting and dealing with complaints, but getting the trust of senior members of the armed forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) raised the issue of medical support for our armed forces. She, like me, was heavily criticised at the time for the closure of Army, Navy and RAF-dedicated hospitals, but in hindsight it was the right thing to do. She rightly paid tribute to the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the investment that has gone into it, as well as the dedicated NHS staff working closely alongside the military personnel, breaking new ground not only with new surgical techniques but by keeping people alive who even a matter of years ago would not have survived, as she rightly said. However, I have concerns about how the NHS integrates with the Army recovery capability—which she also raised—which is something I am glad the Government are committed to. We need to ensure a seamless transition into civilian life for those people, and that they get the appropriate NHS care once they have left the armed forces.
	My hon. Friend made some interesting points about finance in relation to the strategic defence and security review. No one will be surprised when I reiterate that the SDSR was not a defence review but a budget-led, Treasury-led review. As a nation, we need to ask what our role is in the world. That was not done as part of the SDSR, as it was led by the Treasury. That led to some of the mistakes that are now being unpicked as the new Secretary of State tries to get to grips with the situation.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about the defence budget. The Government keep pushing the myth that they started with a £38 billion black hole, even though no one has yet been able to explain the calculations behind that figure. The original National Audit Office report said that there would be a £6 billion black hole if the budget continued on its present basis. The only way of arriving at a figure of £36 billion would be to add flat cash over 10 years and to include everything in the equipment programme. That still leaves an unexplained extra £2 billion. Members will be pleased to know that I am now on Twitter, and I had an interesting exchange last night with the former Minister for defence procurement, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who told me that the figure was even higher than £38 billion. If that is the case, why do we not know what it actually is?
	That brings me to the Ministry of Defence’s annual report and accounts, which make great reading. It is interesting that claims by the previous and present Secretaries of State to have balanced the budget are
	nowhere to be seen in the introduction. It will also come as no surprise that the accounts for this year have been qualified.

James Arbuthnot: May I gently draw the attention of the shadow Minister to the fact that the accounts were qualified in every year under the last Labour Government as well?

Kevan Jones: I acknowledge that, but I did not make wild claims about somehow having magicked away a £38 billion black hole in two years, which the Secretary of State is now doing.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke mentioned Defence Equipment and Support, and I agree with him that there is uncertainty in that regard that needs early resolution. He might be interested to know that the accounts show that the average length of time that the MOD equipment programme was delayed in 2010-11 was 0.46 months, and that the figure has now increased to 5.5 months. No great progress has been made in the efficiency of the delivery of that programme.
	Another startling fact to emerge from the annual report and accounts is that the Department has not received approval for the remuneration package for the Chief of Defence Matériel, who is earning considerably more than the Prime Minister. It has been suggested that the Department has somehow acted outside its authority in this regard. We need clarification of some of the issues raised in the annual report and accounts.
	We keep being promised an explanation of the Secretary of State’s assertion that the defence budget is now in balance. On 14 May and 11 June, he told the House that he would shortly publish the figures, and he told the Defence Select Committee on 12 July that the NAO report would be published in September and that it would explain exactly how he had balanced the budget. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised an interesting point about this matter.
	Yesterday, during the Chancellor’s statement, it was mentioned almost as an aside that defence had somehow got off lightly, given the further 1% cuts that other Departments were being asked to make—but that is not the case. It will have to swallow cuts of its own, and, according to The Daily Telegraph today, that will involve another £1.3 billion coming out of defence. It is important that we get clarification of this so-called balancing of the budget, when it is clearly not in balance. We also need an explanation of where the original figure of £38 billion came from.
	The reason that is important is that members of our armed forces and their families know that we are in tough times and that they have to take some share of the pain. What they do not want to see, however, are spurious figures and spurious claims made to justify some of what is being done. There are only two ways of getting money quickly out of the defence budget: either by cutting the number of personnel or by cutting in-year programmes, leaving capability gaps, which is what the strategic defence and security review has done.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made some points about Germany and rebasing. We have been promised a statement next week, so it will be interesting to see whether that comes forward. I thought it completely bonkers when the right hon. Member for
	North Somerset (Dr Fox) made the announcement. I looked at the issue when I was a Minister, so I know that four years ago the price tag was £3.5 billion—but where that is coming from, I do not know. It is important to have clarification not only for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave regarding communities and individuals here, but because we must know what is actually happening for our servicemen and women along with civil servants, educationists and others based in Germany. If the cost was £3.5 billion then, it is surely a lot higher today. It is not just about bringing people back, as it is also about evaluating the costs of withdrawal—environmental and other costs that will be added to the clean-up of those areas. Under the treaty with the Germans, it is quite clear that two years’ written notice has to be given, but I am not aware that that has happened. I do not mind if the Government have changed their policy on this issue, but they should say so, as we do not want the uncertainty.
	The hon. Member for Moray spoke about the so-called future Scottish armed forces, claiming that they will comprise 15,000. I am not sure what type of role they will take: if they are to be in NATO, what would they deploy? Will the army act as a border force to stop riotous Northumbrians crossing the border? Will there be a navy of fishing boats? Will the air force be of gliders? In this debate, it is important for the Scottish National party not only to deal with the present lay-down of armed forces, as the hon. Gentleman has, but to be honest with people and say what the future defence structure would look like in an independent Scotland.
	I join the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) in paying tribute to Wootton Bassett and to Sir Neil Thorne. I also commend the hon. Gentleman’s role on the marching parades, which have been supported across the parties.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his quite proper recognition of the contribution of people from Northern Ireland to the armed forces. I visited Northern Ireland when I was a Minister, and I was very impressed by the dedication I found there to all three of our armed forces.
	I know that on many occasions the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) adopts a light-hearted approach in his contributions to the House. Today, however, he made a very serious contribution, which I think shows the House of Commons at its best. He paid tribute to the victims of the Droppin’ Well bombing. It must have been very difficult for him to relive some of those experiences today, so I pay tribute to him for doing so. He is right that 30 years seems a long time ago, but not for him and the people who were there. Speaking as he did in this debate greatly honours those people and pays a fitting tribute to their memories. I hope that his contribution gives some comfort to those who were injured in the ways he described and to the families, relatives and friends of those who lost their lives.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned another matter, and his position was the same as mine when I was veterans Minister. It is fine to get things right now for veterans and those injured in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. My concern, in common with the hon. Gentleman’s, is what happens to these people in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time. We, as a society and a nation, owe a great debt of gratitude to those individuals. Irrespective of our political parties, we need to ensure that that
	remains the case. I hope that the work with service charities in relation to the Army recovery capability scheme, which is in the pipeline, involves something of that joined-up approach, but we shall have to monitor this on a yearly basis. We shall need to look after the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who are already injured as a result of service in Afghanistan and Iraq—when they are older. There can be no “if” or “but”; we must do that.
	When it comes to housing—the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Colchester—we must ensure that we continue to listen to the views of the British Armed Forces Federation.
	Let me end by saying that it is always good to hear such well-informed contributions, and by again paying tribute to our brave servicemen and women.

Mark Francois: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) on helping to secure the debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for it. It has been a good debate, and I shall attempt to refer to as many contributions as is practically possible in the time available.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, raised several issues. Let me deal briefly with one of them, which was also raised by other Members. It concerned the Service Complaints Commissioner. I met Dr Atkins recently to discuss how we could help her to perform her very independent role. I hope that the dialogue on which we have embarked will prove productive, and I look forward to meeting her again in the new year.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on her recent commissioning as a sub-lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve. In debates such as this, it is always reassuring to know that the Royal Navy is sitting behind me, particularly as my father served in the Royal Navy.
	I thank my Essex colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), for his contribution. He raised a range of issues, and, as usual, he had a long wish list. I can tell him that I was present when the Colchester Military Wives Choir performed in Portcullis House, and that I thanked them at the end of their performance. I visited Colchester garrison about a year ago, as a member of the Committee that dealt with the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2011, thus helping to enshrine the key principles of the covenant in law. I have met representatives of the Defence Police Federation and trade union representatives of the Ministry of Defence Guard Service, and I hope to return to Colchester early in the new year. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, at least for the moment. I will not mention the meeting that I had with him at the MOD yesterday on a different topic.
	This debate falls on the day on which we publish the first annual report on the armed forces covenant, which is a subject of great importance and should be given due regard. For too long we may have sometimes taken for granted the special nature of military service: a willingness, if necessary, to lay down one’s life for one’s country. I echo the tributes that have been paid to the extremely moving and powerful speech made by my hon. Friend
	the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who reminded us of the tragedy of the Ballykelly bombing 30 years ago. I am sure that he will do good service when he returns to commemorate that very difficult anniversary at the weekend.
	Let me also remind the House, if it needs reminding, that today, as I speak, men and women are on patrol in Afghanistan, helping to keep us safe from terrorism at home. We must and will go the extra mile for them for their families, and for the roughly one in 10 adults in the United Kingdom who are veterans. That is a very important statistic.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also mentioned the covenant. We had a very good debate about it in the House last month. Let me update the hon. Gentleman on the points that were raised. There is a difficulty with local authorities in Northern Ireland signing the community covenant because it could be argued in some quarters that it conflicts with equalities legislation. That point was made powerfully in the debate. We have now formed a working group of officials from the MOD and the Northern Ireland Office to try to find a way through the difficulty, and I know that the hon. Gentleman and others are to have a meeting with the Prime Minister fairly shortly. We will do our best to come up with a solution.
	It is simply unacceptable that past or present service personnel should be denied equal access to the services on which we all depend. Creating a fair deal for our armed forces past and present is at the core of the armed forces covenant. That is why in the Armed Forces Act 2011 this Government enshrined in law the two key principles of the covenant: that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising as a result of service or former service; and that special provision for service personnel and their families may be justified to mitigate the effects of service, especially for the wounded or bereaved. I believe we are making a good start, but it is arrogant in the extreme to believe we can solve the many long-standing issues—some of which have been raised by Members this afternoon—in a single year.
	Today’s first statutory report covers progress over the full scope of the armed forces covenant, including the four fields specified in the 2011 Act: health care, education, housing and the operation of inquests. I shall address each in turn.
	On health care, the covenant has a particular resonance for those who have suffered injuries or health problems in the service. The importance we place on this is exemplified by the sign above the door of Colonel Kevin Beaton, commanding officer of the Royal College of Defence Medicine in Birmingham:
	“The military patient, their Family and their Unit, we call our ‘Patient Group’. They are the most important people in The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine Clinical Unit. It is our privilege to be entrusted with the care and support of our Patient Groups on behalf of an indebted nation. We are not doing them a favour by looking after them. They are the reason we are here. Proudly serving them provides the overriding purpose behind all we do. They are our Main Effort.”
	I can think of no finer way of expressing that sentiment, and I hope all Members agree with it, not least the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), as she has the privilege of having that unit in her constituency.
	I take medical treatment for our armed forces personnel very seriously. In the three months I have been in post, I have sought to learn as much as possible about the medical support we provide to them. I have visited the Role 3 hospital at Camp Bastion, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, the personnel recovery centre at Tedworth house—run by that wonderful charity, Help for Heroes—and the headquarters of Defence Medical Services near Lichfield. Most recently, I had the honour to participate in a game of wheelchair basketball at the new Battle Back centre at Lilleshall, which I helped to open, and I can attest that fighting spirit and competitiveness are still present in abundance when that sport is played; I still have the blisters on my hands to prove it.
	In the course of those visits, I have seen the medical process end to end, and I can say with confidence that the treatment we provide to injured personnel is world class, a sentiment that I know is shared by, among others, our American counterparts. Wherever they are in the world, the men and women who provide this care should be immensely proud that the Care Quality Commission described the provision as exemplary. It is.
	On education, the pledges made in the covenant are being well received by schools and service families alike. The Department for Education allows infant schools to increase class sizes beyond 30 to admit the children of service personnel. Where resources permit, admissions authorities also have the flexibility to give priority admission to these children.
	Oxfordshire county council has altered its schools admissions policy, allowing places to be allocated to children of service families in advance of a posting, based on a letter from the relevant unit. That is a small change, but it has a very big impact, as it gets around the Catch-22 that people cannot apply for a school place until they have moved to an area, and if they move after the beginning of the school year they are caught. We have changed the rules, and this change is being mirrored by a number of local education authorities around the country, with the backing of the Department for Education.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for Colchester and others raised the subject of housing, and it remains a key issue for the armed forces community. Today’s report points to areas of progress, but also acknowledges that more needs to be done. Some 94% of accommodation for service families is in the top two of four categories. The single living accommodation modernisation programme has delivered almost 5,000 modernised, en-suite rooms in 2011-12, and we are on track to meet our target of 50% of trained personnel being housed in the highest standard of accommodation by March 2013.
	In parallel, we are encouraging service families to explore the choice of owning their own home. Armed forces personnel have been placed at the top of the priority list for all Government-funded home ownership schemes, and service leavers retain that status for up to 12 months after leaving. The level of home ownership among service families has risen from 55% to 60% over the past two years.
	Next I shall deal with the operation of inquests. Tragically, operations in Afghanistan have shown, once again, that members of our armed forces can face
	mortal danger. Above all else, that is why we owe them not only our respect, but the peace of mind that we will care for their families in the event of their death. We should do everything to ensure that the plight of grieving families is not compounded by inadequacies in helping them to understand the circumstances in which their loved ones died. I am encouraged that waiting times for coroners’ inquests have been falling since 2003, including under the previous Government, and maintaining that trend will be a priority. This year, the Government fulfilled their pledge to appoint a chief coroner—we appointed Peter Thornton—and to publish a new national charter for the coroner service. I will meet Mr Thornton on 18 December to discuss how the Ministry of Defence can assist him further in what we agree is vital work.
	Steps have also been taken in a number of additional areas to uphold the values and ideals of the covenant. We recognise, for example, that the process of adapting to civilian life can be daunting. Through the career transition partnership, the MOD provides outstanding career support to service leavers, with the result that 97% of those who use that service will find employment within 12 months. That is an impressive record.
	We also encourage local authorities to appoint armed forces champions as a voice within local government, where a great many pledges within the covenant are delivered. In this regard, I am delighted to report to the House that some 230 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have signed the community covenant—this is spreading like a benign virus—and I sincerely hope that almost all will have done so by Remembrance day next November.
	As announced recently in this House, the new defence discount service will offer a membership card allowing members to access a range of discounts from companies such as Vodafone, Vue Cinemas and Vision Express. I was delighted to join the Prime Minister yesterday to present cards to a number of veterans and serving personnel.
	I also wish to express my gratitude for the contribution of the covenant reference group, which includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations and individuals. The Government committed themselves to publishing the external members’ observations verbatim, alongside the annual report, and today we uphold that promise.
	Of particular concern to the families federations is service accommodation. They comment that the
	“availability of Service Families Accommodation in some areas is insufficient”
	and that
	“higher priority must be given to maintaining and enhancing the quality of all Service-provided accommodation”.
	To many service families, a decent home is the physical embodiment of the covenant. We are working to address these concerns, and I hope we will be in a position to provide further information to the House in due course.
	Members of the reference group acknowledged the high priority given to the covenant by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office and the MOD. The appointment of a chief coroner was described as being “hugely significant” and
	“of real long-term benefit to bereaved Armed Forces families”.
	There is praise also for our progress in addressing disadvantage for armed forces children and in providing better support to deployed personnel and their families. Most encouraging to me is the observation that the covenant is changing attitudes to the armed forces community.
	I must allow the Chairman of the Select Committee back in, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. The armed forces covenant is a work in progress, an ongoing pledge that has support from those in all parts of the House. Each and every year we will come before this House with, to borrow a military term, a “SitRep”, giving a state of play on the covenant and our obligations under it. While I hold this post, I am absolutely determined that we will demonstrate real progress year on year, put flesh on the bones of the covenant and honour the people to whom we owe so much.

James Arbuthnot: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I start my contribution, after a debate in which it has been a great privilege to take part, on a note of disagreement? In a year in which we have celebrated Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee and the greatest Olympics the world has ever seen, I must disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that we may be losing our sense of self. I think we are a prouder nation now than we have ever been, and we have every reason to be proud. One of the greatest reasons to be proud is our armed forces.
	In a few short sentences, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) reminded us what it is that we owe to our armed forces and of our duty to look after those who have looked after us so well. He reminded me of what a privilege I have in charing the Defence Committee of this House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved ,
	That this House has considered the matter of defence personnel.

EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (PSYCHOLOGICAL WELFARE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Jim Sheridan: As chair of the Unite the Union group in Parliament and of the all-party group on health and safety, I have spent most of my working life in politics standing up for people who have been disadvantaged because of the career they have chosen. As Major Cameron March MBE, from the Army’s operational stress management team, recently said:
	“If we put people into difficult places we’ve got to have something in place to look after them”.
	That is true in all walks of life, whether we are dealing with builders exposed to asbestos, lorry drivers travelling over long hours or, as I will speak about this evening, service personnel exposed to traumatic experiences. The issue I have brought to the House today seems to me to be an extreme example of occupational health and safety. As employers, we have a responsibility to those brave individuals to ensure they can live a fulfilling life following their service.
	I was delighted to read in one of the tabloid papers today that the Prime Minister has announced £1 million for veterans’ charities. I would like to say, “It was this debate wot done it”, but something inside tells me that another event is taking place tonight that has been organised by one of the tabloid papers. The £1 million is welcome and I am sure the veterans will appreciate it.
	Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD as it is now known, is not a new phenomenon. It was first identified during the first world war, and was called “shell shock”. We have moved on since then and correctly recognise that it is a serious condition that in no way undermines the brave work undertaken by our armed forces. Despite that, there is still a significant stigma attached to mental health issues among veterans. Many still consider themselves “weak” if they suffer in the adjustment to civilian life.
	A culture change among veterans is needed, but for policymakers that is difficult to achieve. However, if the Government direct more funding to the condition, which is what I shall argue for today, we can give hope to those suffering and help them to recognise that they are not weak and that the condition is a natural reaction to the horrors they have seen.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of Dr Ian Palmer and the medical assessment programme at St Mary’s? Until recently it was open to all veterans who could go for individual psychological assessments. That has now been downgraded and moved to Chilwell in Nottinghamshire. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that and agree that open access, even later in life, is important for veterans?

Jim Sheridan: I am not aware of the precise details, but I am extremely disappointed to hear that. I am sure that the Minister will address that when he gets the opportunity.
	My right hon. colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, has said that he
	“takes the issue of mental health very seriously, and we recognise that operational deployments will inevitably expose personnel to stressful experiences.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 447W.]
	Similarly, when he was a Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), claimed that the coalition Government
	“considers the health and wellbeing of…armed forces personnel, veterans and their families to be a top priority.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 801W.]
	I agree with these sentiments, as I am sure we all do. Those veterans have put their lives on the line so that we can be safe. They have done a great service for their country and they deserve the top service from their country in return. So why then do the actions of Ministers not speak louder than their words? Their statements are commendable, but their funding commitments are not. I am calling today for more public funding to be directed to the issue and for the psychological well-being of our veterans to be considered a top priority.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman referred to the great work done by charitable organisations —for instance, SSAFA Forces Help, the Army Benevolent Fund, the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and many others. Would it be more constructive if the Government were to work with those charitable organisations to address the problem?

Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I will come to that important aspect.
	It is important that we tackle the issue now as we are only a few years away from it becoming more serious. The Prime Minister confirmed at the end of November that the combat mission in Afghanistan will end in 2014. With this will come the return of thousands of troops who have been serving abroad so that we can remain safe in our own country. Combat Stress estimates that 7,600 of the 191,000 personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan could develop PTSD, and that 37,600 are suffering from other disorders, such as depression, mood disorders and anxiety. It could be up to 13 years before the problems reveal themselves, so work done now in this area could prove invaluable 10 to 15 years down the line.
	However, we should not be alarmist. Most British military personnel do not suffer any mental health problems while in service or afterwards. We also cannot be certain that the numbers of personnel suffering from mental health issues are disproportionate to the population as a whole. There are conflicting views on this. I have spoken to Veterans Aid, which says that there is no problem with ex-service personnel care, yet PTSD Resolution, a charity that gives counselling to veterans, talks about a much larger problem that is not currently acknowledged. The Royal British Legion anticipates a growing number of problems due to the rebalancing of the armed forces towards reservists.
	With more and more armed forces coming back from Afghanistan, the possibly low estimate of 4% of personnel with probable PTSD, 19.7% with other mental disorders and 13% with unhealthy relationships with alcohol will become a much larger problem. I say possibly low estimate because the United States’ estimates of its defence personnel with PTSD range from 12% to 20%. Whether our figures are low or not, all personnel suffering from PTSD and other mental health issues deserve the highest quality post-deployment support services.
	I find it a huge cause for concern that these services are at present undertaken, by and large, by charities. They rely on the generosity of the public and in the current environment, where donations to charities are down by 20%, according to the Office for National Statistics, we cannot go on in this way. Let me provide some examples. The Big White Wall online support network is propped up by a £100,000 commitment from Help for Heroes. That is almost a third of its total funding. Combat Stress, a veterans charity, is currently supporting over 5,000 veterans aged from 20 to 101 and it says it
	“simply couldn’t do what we do without the generosity of the great British public.”
	PTSD Resolution provides counselling to UK veterans, with a 78% success rate, but gets no recognition for its work from the MOD. Erskine hospital in my constituency provides vital care to veterans suffering from mental health issues, among others, and relies on donations to cover a large part of the £7 million a year that it needs to keep going.
	It is unfortunate that those charities have to rely on fundraising to undertake work that provides a lifeline to those suffering after service. Veterans are clearly not a priority for this Government; they were not for the previous Government either. They are a priority for the charities, but it is a sad fact that in our society it is charities that are caring for our war wounded. More funding should be directed to the psychological welfare of ex-service personnel, and it should come from the public purse.
	The funding issue will only get worse. The Government are planning to double the number of reservists, from 15,000 to 30,000, by 2018. That raises a key question, because reserve personnel are more likely than regular soldiers to suffer from PTSD. Therefore, we need a strategy for the future to tackle that invisible consequence of service.
	Funding has been allocated for those brave personnel, but we do not know whether any of it will cover increased mental health provision. I have a few precise questions about the Government’s plans to care for those additional members of the armed forces, who take on the responsibility alongside their day jobs. Since reservists are going to be more exposed to the front line, will there be a change to the pre-deployment training to reflect that, and will there be any additional provision for reservists and their families?
	On that point, let me underline the importance of including families in any post-deployment care. PTSD and other mental health problems do not have individual victims; their effects permeate the lives of sufferers’ friends and family, and often that effect is overlooked. It is perhaps more pertinent for reservists, as they return to environments where their experience is not particularly well understood. They can find it hard to readjust to civilian life, and their friends and family find it hard to see the person they loved change into someone new.
	As an MP with a long history of standing up for rights in the workplace, I am also interested to hear how reservists’ rights will be protected. Will the Minister be looking to change post-deployment rest and recuperation, given that it is a key factor, cited by many experts, for why they do not recover? That seems a sensible suggestion to help mitigate the effects of traumatic experiences in
	the field. If that was the case, how much extra time away from work would that imply? Will reservists be given guarantees by the Government that their involvement will not hinder their job applications or relationships with employers?
	Reservists, as with all other armed forces personnel, make a great sacrifice for their country and should not be penalised for that. They face specific issues on return, such as a lack of understanding from friends and family and more open criticism of the war in Iraq. They are also usually called upon to fill gaps in the regulars, becoming out of sync with the rest of their unit and, therefore, lacking the comradeship that can be such an important part of service. As such, they should be given the proper prevention and intervention strategies they need to readjust to civilian life and prevent any mental health issues manifesting themselves.
	I am sure that the Minister agrees with me on many of these issues. He might be searching desperately in his limited budget for spare cash to spend on mental health care for veterans. Perhaps I can help him in that regard. We have called for deeper cuts to the number of one-star officers and those above, the highest paid, in order to correct the top-heavy imbalance across our services. I am not usually in favour of redundancy policies, but the number of the most senior officers in the MOD has risen by a third since 1990. We have more admirals than ships. We have a higher number of officers across all three services than do the French and US air, maritime and land forces. Although 20% of more junior ranks look set to lose their jobs, just one in 20 of the most senior officers in all three services have been made redundant. The money spent employing senior officers could be much better spent helping to ease the burden of veterans’ charities. The £1 million could be spent on a fund that would focus research on mental health issues and charities could bid for funds to support their own policy research.
	It is estimated that by 2020 1.8 million people in the armed forces community will be living with a long-standing illness. I have spent much of my political career fighting for people who have been injured or made ill as a result of their job. Serving in a combat zone where their life is constantly imperilled places unique burdens on our service personnel. It is imperative that the Government recognise the need to ensure that our armed forces are afforded not only the best physical care but the best mental health care while serving and after returning to civilian life. We cannot rely on charities to do this vital work any longer. I sincerely hope that this debate has managed to bring some of the issues to the table, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s plans to ensure the mental well-being of our respected veterans.
	Finally, it would be inappropriate in the context of this debate not to mention the Christmas Island veterans, who are still looking for compensation after almost 40 years. I hope that the Minister will say something about them as well.

Mark Francois: I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate on the mental health of our former service personnel. I thank him for his courtesy in giving me some idea of the issues that he intended to raise.
	This is a vital subject in which cross-Government working is having a real impact. Although the four UK Health Departments hold primary responsibility for the issue, I naturally take a very close interest in it given my veterans portfolio. I hope that in the previous debate on armed forces personnel I was able to persuade the House that in the three months in which I have been doing the job I have taken a very close interest particularly in the medical issues that affect personnel and veterans.
	That said, I must regretfully disagree with the charges that the hon. Gentleman laid against this Government. We are investing in mental health at every juncture of a service career. From recruitment, to deployment, to discharge and transition into civilian life, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health have made funding available for extensive support to serving personnel and veterans who encounter mental health problems.
	Let me also say that the Government very much welcome the role played by service charities. It is entirely appropriate that we should look to harness their niche capability and expertise to maximise the quality of support given to the service community. In many cases, this support is provided by a partnership with Government, and that should be celebrated rather than regretted.
	As the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), announced on 6 October last year, the Government accepted all the recommendations in “Fighting Fit”, the report by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) which now forms the backbone of the work being done across Government to improve mental health care for service personnel and veterans. I can report good progress in delivering those recommendations. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North specifically talked about veterans, but I will briefly set out the context of our overall strategy for mental health.
	While serving, all personnel, including reservists, are encouraged to report distress or mental health concerns. We have introduced a process called trauma risk management, or TRiM—a peer group support system that is helping to identify those at risk and provide support to them.

Bob Stewart: From what I have heard, there is extremely good counselling in the field after incidents have occurred. People zone in on those affected, immediately and without delay, and check them out as best they can.

Mark Francois: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention.
	TRiM was initially developed by the Royal Marines. It involves training non-specialists in military units to lead discussions about traumatic events and spot those who may need additional help. We make sure that we have mental health professionals forward deployed in theatre, exactly along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, to deal with such eventualities if and when they occur. We deploy uniformed mental health teams to provide care on the front line. Regular psychological health assessments are conducted to ensure that support in theatre is sufficient and, if needed, a UK-based team of a psychiatrist and mental health nurse can deploy to theatre at short notice if an incident warrants it.
	At the end of an operational tour, units undergo decompression—an opportunity to unwind and talk about their experiences. At this point, personnel also receive a series of briefings designed to help them adapt to their return from deployment, and mental health is one of the specific issues raised.
	Specific measures are also in place for those leaving the service. After a successful regional pilot, structured mental health assessments were rolled out nationally in July 2012 as part of routine and discharge medicals. We hope they will be useful in highlighting mental health problems at an early stage.
	To ease transition from military to civilian life, personnel with identified mental health issues can access military departments of community mental health up to six months after discharge. There are 15 such departments across the United Kingdom, providing specialist mental health support to military personnel. In addition, GP registration forms in England, Scotland and Wales now enable those who have served to declare this when registering with a doctor’s practice, providing an opportunity to discuss their unique needs, if they so wish.
	On the specific steps that we are taking for veterans, the Department of Health, working with South Staffordshire and Shropshire mental health trust, has put in place a national veterans mental health network. This brings together NHS clinicians, the Ministry of Defence, Combat Stress and others to assess the implementation of the recommendations made by the Under-Secretary. The network’s first full meeting was in Stafford on 29 October and a national conference will take place in March 2013. I also take this opportunity to place on the record our appreciation for the valuable work done by Combat Stress, and I am looking forward to a meeting with its chief executive, Mr Andrew Cameron, in the next few days.
	Armed forces networks, whose role is to provide links between the forces and the wider community on health issues, are beginning to implement veterans mental health projects in each former strategic health authority area. I am delighted to report that there are now more than 50 extra veterans mental health professionals in the NHS across the various armed forces networks in England, which is 20 more than originally recommended by my hon. Friend. I do not, therefore, accept the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about lack of resources, although I accept that he made it in good faith.
	In his report, my hon. Friend acknowledged the value of the medical assessment programme, which offers assessments to ex-service personnel suffering mental health problems. On 29 October, the MAP was relocated with the reserves mental health programme at Chilwell, Nottingham, to form the veteran and reserves mental health programme. This more central location in the middle of the country will, we believe, make for easier access and ensure that high standards of clinical oversight are maintained.
	More than 2,500 members of the armed forces community are now registered to use the Big White Wall, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is a website that allows users to talk anonymously about mental health issues. Early indications suggest that it is proving a valuable means of interaction without the stigma sometimes attached to mental health. User surveys are reporting
	significant reductions in stress and anxiety, not least because individuals can raise issues anonymously, if they so choose.
	Plans are also maturing for the veterans information service, a means of providing advice to veterans on accessing services and support for health issues related to their military service. When launched, all veterans who leave the armed forces will be contacted by letter or e-mail after 12 months, so that we can check how they are getting on.
	On work in the nations and regions, I recently met Keith Brown MSP, the Scottish Minister for Transport and Veterans, to discuss the steps the Scottish Government are taking on veterans’ issues. In addition to maintaining support for specialist mental health services for the next three years, they will fund and seek to expand the Veterans First Point service, an advice centre designed to help veterans and their families during the transition to civilian life.
	In Wales, the all Wales veterans health and wellbeing service is providing access to specialist outpatient care and signposting veterans and their families to other support that they may require. It offers access to therapists with expertise in veterans’ mental health to provide assessment, treatment and referral. Treatment options include commissioning the services of Combat Stress, which works in partnership with the service to provide nurse-led community support groups.
	In Northern Ireland—I should place on the record that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was present for part of this debate—a specialist aftercare service was established in 2007 to address the unique requirements of veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment home service, and their dependants. Each year, that widely praised aftercare service deals with about 4,500 cases, providing welfare support and medical services, including mental health support.

Jim Sheridan: Is the Minister aware that a significant number of veterans are serving prison sentences or are on parole? The American system is different because it tracks the crimes of ex-service personnel. I am not suggesting for a minute that people should be able to commit crimes and get away with them, but is there something that we could do in Britain to copy the American system?

Mark Francois: I have looked into this matter and am advised that the proportion of veterans in prison is no higher than the proportion of the civilian population that is in prison. We need to do what we can through rehabilitation and other means to help those people, just as we would help others.
	The Department of Health in England has extended its funding of the Combat Stress and Rethink 24-hour mental health helpline for service personnel, families and veterans. In addition, the Department of Health, in partnership with the Royal College of General Practitioners, has put in place training packages for GPs to raise awareness of the unique needs of armed forces families and veterans.
	On a broader point, in line with the principles of the armed forces covenant—we launched the report on that today—the Government have reaffirmed that veterans
	in England should be given priority NHS treatment for conditions related to service, subject to the clinical needs of others. The Scottish and Welsh Governments accord the same priority to veterans. That is important, given that one in 10 adults in the United Kingdom is now a veteran, going right back through the second world war, Northern Ireland and other conflicts up to the present day. A high proportion of our population have served their country in uniform in one way or another.
	The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to post-traumatic stress disorder. I was delighted to be able to visit King’s college London recently, not least because some time ago that was where I completed my masters degree in war studies. To some extent, I was going back to my alma mater. While there, I met Professor Simon Wessely and his internationally renowned team in the King’s centre for military health research. Mental health issues, particularly PTSD, have been a key focus of his research, which the MOD continues to fund. I was reassured by Professor Wessely that comparatively low rates of PTSD are being recorded in the service community. The evidence indicates that the mental health of the armed forces remains robust, but naturally we will do our utmost to help the minority who develop PTSD or other mental illnesses.
	In addition to the measures that are already in place, we have made provision for the training for primary health care staff to raise awareness of PTSD. Defence Medical Services has more than 200 mental health professionals who provide specialist support to service personnel and, as I have mentioned, additional personnel are available in the NHS to augment the existing capability. I have also mentioned the veterans and reserves mental health programme, which the MOD continues to fund. The Department of Health has agreed to fund the provision of acute PTSD services by Combat Stress with £3.5 million a year for five years. As I have said, I shall be meeting Andrew Cameron shortly to discuss how that money can best be deployed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Christmas Island veterans. I hope that he will forgive me, but I have concentrated my remarks on mental health. The fairest thing that I can say is that I will write to him about that issue. I hope, under the circumstances, that he regards that as acceptable.
	I think that what I have said gives an indication of the importance the Government attach to the treatment of the mental health problems of our service personnel and veterans. Although we have long been aware of the implications of physical injury to our armed forces personnel, it is fair to say that for a long period there has been a stigma surrounding mental health. We are starting fully to recognise and deal with the impact on the lives of those who suffer from such issues. It is to the credit of the previous Government that work was done to begin to address these issues on their watch. The House can rest assured that the current Government will continue to do all that we practically can to look after service personnel and veterans who develop mental health issues. These people are important to our country and we must do our best for them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned .